Biblical commentary the Old Testament/Volume V. Greater Prophets/Jeremiah 30-52

by Franz Delitzsch

B. The Announcement of Deliverance for All Israel - Jeremiah 30-33

In view of the impending fall of the kingdom of Judah, Jeremiah seeks to present the godly with a strong anchor of hope in the realization of God's gracious promises, which were to be fulfilled after the appointed season of punishment had passed. For this purpose, after predicting the ills of exile times, the prophet gives a comprehensive statement concerning the deliverance which the Lord will vouchsafe to His people in the future, and gathers together the repeated briefer promises regarding the restoration and glorious condition of Israel and Judah, so as to give a full description of the deliverance intended for all the covenant people under the sceptre of the future David. This detailed announcement of the deliverance consists of a pretty long prophetic address (which Hengstenberg very properly designates "the triumphal hymn of Israel's salvation," Jer 30 and 31), and two pieces confirmatory of this address, viz.: (1) one recording a symbolical act performed by the prophet at God's command - the sale of a piece of hereditary property in land during the last siege of Jerusalem, shortly before the breaking up of the kingdom, which commenced with the taking of the city - together with a message from God explaining this act, Jer 32; ; and (2) another passage giving, in prophetic language, a renewed promise that Jerusalem and Judah would be restored with the blissful arrangements connected with the Davidic monarchy and the Levitical priesthood, Jer 33. According to the headings given in Jer 32:1 and Jer 33:1, these two latter pieces belong to the tenth year of Zedekiah's reign;

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1529

the address contained in Jer 30 and 31, on the other hand, belongs to a somewhat earlier period, and was not uttered publicly before the people, but simply composed in writing, and meant to be preserved for future use. As regards the exact time of its composition, the views of modern expositors are very dissimilar. While Hengstenberg, with many others, places it in the same period with the allied chapters 32 and 33, viz., in the time when Jerusalem was being besieged, immediately before the capture and destruction of the city, Nägelsbach reckons this address among the oldest portions of the whole book, and assigns its composition to the times of King Josiah, to which Jer 3:11-25 belongs. But the arguments adduced in support of this view are quite insufficient to establish it. It does not by any means follow from the substantial agreement of the address with that in Jer 3, so far as it exists, that they were both composed at the same time; and if (as Nägelsbach thinks) the fact that there is no mention made of the Chaldeans were taken as a criterion of composition before the fourth year of Jehoiakim, then, too, would the address in Jer 33 be put down as having been composed before that year, but in glaring contradiction to the inscription given Jer 33:1. And as little reason is there for inferring, with Hengstenberg, from Jer 30:5-7, that the final catastrophe of Jeremiah's time is represented as still imminent; for these verses do not refer at all to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans. That learned writer is, however, quite correct in his remark, that the prophet takes his stand-point within the period of the catastrophe, as if it had already begun, but that this time is an ideal present, so that we must not allow ourselves to be deceived as to the time of composition by the circumstance that, generally, Judah no less than Israel appears to be already in a state of exile, far from the land of the Lord. The time of composition cannot be made out with perfect certainty. Yet there is nothing against the assumption that it is the tenth year of Zedekiah.

Israel's Deliverance and Glorious Condition in the Future - Jeremiah 30-31

A great day of judgment, before which all the world trembles, will bring to Israel deliverance from the yoke imposed on them.

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1530

The Lord will bring them out of the land of their captivity (Jer 30:4-11). He will bind up and heal the wounds which He inflicted on them because of their sins; will render to those who oppressed and chastised them according to their deeds (Jer 30:12-17); will again build up His kingdom, and render His people glorious, both in temporal and spiritual respects (Jer 30:18-22). The wrath of the Lord will be poured forth upon all evil-doers like a tempest, till He has performed the thoughts of His heart at the end of the days (Jer 30:23, Jer 30:24). At that time the Lord will become the God of all the families of Israel, and show them favour as His own people (Jer 31:1-6); He will also gather the remnant of Israel out of the land of the north, lead them back into their inheritance, and make them glad and prosperous through His blessing (Jer 31:7-14); the sorrow of Ephraim will He change to joy, and He will perform a new thing in the land (Jer 31:15-22). In like manner will He restore Judah, and make want to cease (Jer 31:23-26). Israel and Judah shall be raised to new life (Jer 31:27-30), and a new covenant will be made with them, for the Lord will write His law in their heart and forgive their sins (Jer 31:31-34). Israel shall for ever remain the people of God, and Jerusalem be built anew to the honour of the Lord, and, as a holy city, shall no more be laid waste for ever (Jer 31:35-40).
This address forms a united whole which divides into two halves. In Jer 30:4-22 it is the deliverance of Israel in general that is set forth; while in the passage from Jer 30:23 on to the end of Jer 31 it is deliverance, more especially in reference to Israel and Judah, that is portrayed. As there is no doubt about its unity, so neither is there any well-founded doubt regarding its genuineness and integrity. Hence the assertion of Hitzig, that, as a whole, it exhibits such a want of connection, such constant alternation of view-point, so many repetitions, and such irregularity in the structure of the verses, that there seems good ground for suspecting interpolation - such an assertion only shows the inability of the expositor to put himself into the course of thought in the prophetic word, to grasp its contents properly, and to give a fair and unprejudiced estimate of the whole. Hitzig would reject Jer 31:38-40, and Nägelsbach Jer 30:20-24, as later additions, but in neither case

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1531

is this admissible; and Kueper (Jeremias, p. 170ff.) and Graf, in his Commentary, have already so well shown with what little reason Movers and Hitzig have supposed they had discovered so many "interpolations," that, in our exposition, we merely intend to take up in detail some of the chief passages.

Chap. 30

Verses 1-3

Introduction, and Statement of the Subject - Jer 30:1. "The word which came to Jeremiah from Jahveh, saying: Jer 30:2. Thus hath Jahveh the God of Israel said: Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book; Jer 30:3. For, behold, days come, saith Jahveh, when I shall turn the captivity of my people Israel and Judah, saith Jahve, and I shall bring them back to the land which I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it."
Jer 30:1 contains the heading not merely of Jer 30:2 and Jer 30:3, as Hitzig erroneously maintains, but of the whole prophecy, in Jer 30 and 31. Jer 30:2 and Jer 30:3 form the introduction. Jeremiah is to write the following word of God in a book, because it refers to times still future, - regards the deliverance of Israel and Judah from exile, which will not take place till afterwards. In assigning the reason for the command to write down the word of God that had been received, there is at the same time given the subject of the prophecy which follows. From this it is further evident that the expression "all the words which I have spoken to thee" cannot, like Jer 36:2, be referred, with J. D. Michaelis, to the whole of the prophecies which Jeremiah had up till that time received; it merely refers to the following prophecy of deliverance. The perfect דּבּרתּי is thus not a preterite, but only expresses that the address of God to the prophet precedes the writing down of the words he received. As to the expression שׁוּב שׁבוּת, see on Jer 29:14.

Verses 4-11

Jer 30:4-11The judgment on the nations for the deliverance of Israel. - Jer 30:4. "And these are the words which Jahveh spake concerning Israel and Judah: Jer 30:5. For thus saith Jahveh: We have heard a cry of terror, fear, and no peace. Jer 30:6. Ask now, and see whether a male bears a child? Why do I see every man with his hands on his loins like a woman in childbirth,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1532

and every face turned to paleness? Jer 30:7. Alas! for that day is great, with none like it, and it is a time of distress for Jacob, but he will be saved out of it. Jer 30:8. And it shall come to pass on that day, saith Jahveh of hosts, that I will break his yoke from upon thy neck, and I will burst thy bonds, and strangers shall no more put servitude on him; Jer 30:9. But they shall serve Jahveh their God, and David their king, whom I shall raise up to them. Jer 30:10.But fear thou not, O my servant Jacob, saith Jahveh, neither be confounded, O Israel; for, behold, I will save thee from afar, and thy seed from the land of their captivity; and Jacob shall return, and be at rest, and be secure, and there shall be none making him afraid. Jer 30:11.For I am with thee, saith Jahveh, to save thee; for I will make an end of all the nations whither I have scattered thee, yet of thee will I not make an end, but I will chastise thee properly and will not let thee go quite unpunished."
With Jer 30:4 is introduced the description of Israel's restoration announced in Jer 30:3. This introduction is not absolutely necessary, but neither is it for that reason spurious and to be expunged, as Hitzig seeks to do; it rather corresponds to the breadth of Jeremiah's representation. The כּי in Jer 30:5 is explicative: "Thus, namely, hath Jahveh spoken." With the lively dramatic power of a poet, the prophet at once transports the hearers or readers of his prophecy, in thought, into the great day to come, which is to bring deliverance to all Israel. As a day of judgment, it brings terror and anguish on all those who live to see it. קול חרדה, "A voice (sound) of trembling (or terror) we hear," viz., the people, of whom the prophet is one. פּחד does not depend on שׁמענוּ, but forms with ואין שׁלום an independent clause: "There is fear and not peace" (or safety). Jer 30:6. What is the cause of this great horror, which makes all men, from convulsive pains, hold their hands on their loins, so as to support their bowels, in which they feel the pangs, and which makes every countenance pale? In Jer 30:7 the cause of this horror is declared. It is the great day of judgment that is coming. "That (not hits) day" points to the future, and thus, even apart from other reasons, excludes the supposition that it is the day of the destruction of Jerusalem that is

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1533

meant. The words "that day is great" refer to Joe 2:11, and "there is none like it" is an imitation of Joe 2:2; in the latter passage the prophet makes use of a judgment which he had seen passed on Judah - its devastation by locusts - and for the first time presents, as the main element in his prophecy, the idea of the great day of judgment to come on all nations, and by which the Lord will perfect His kingdom on this earth. This day is for Jacob also, i.e., for all Israel, a time of distress; for the judgment falls not merely on the heathen nations, but also on the godless members of the covenant people, that they may be destroyed from among the congregation of the Lord. The judgment is therefore for Israel as well as for other nations a critical juncture, from which the Israel of God, the community of the faithful, will be delivered. This deliverance is described more in detail in Jer 30:8. The Lord will break the yoke imposed on Israel, free His people from all bondage to strangers, i.e., the heathen, so that they may serve only Him, the Lord, and David, His king, whom He will raise up. The suffix in עלּו is referred by several expositors (Hitzig, Nägelsbach) to the king of Babylon, "as having been most clearly before the minds of Jeremiah and his contemporaries;" in support of this view we are pointed to Isa 10:27, as a passage which may have been before the eyes of Jeremiah. But neither this parallel passage nor צוּארך (with the suffix of the second person), which immediately follows, sufficiently justifies this view. For, in the second half also of the verse, the second person is interchanged with the third, and מוסרותיך, which is parallel with עלּו, requires us to refer the suffix in the latter word to Jacob, so that "his yoke" means "the yoke laid on him," as in 1Ki 12:4; Isa 9:3. It is also to be borne in mind that, throughout the whole prophecy, neither Babylon nor the king of Babylon is once mentioned; and that the judgment described in these verses cannot possibly be restricted to the downfall of the Babylonian monarchy, but is the judgment that is to fall upon all nations (Jer 30:11). And although this judgment begins with the fall of the Babylonian supremacy, it will bring deliverance to the people of God, not merely from the yoke of Babylon, but from every yoke which strangers have laid or will lay on them.

Verse 9

Then Israel

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1534

will no longer serve strangers, i.e., foreign rulers who are heathens, but their God Jahveh, and David the king who will be raised up to them, i.e., the Messiah, the righteous sprout that Jahveh will raise up to David; cf. Jer 23:5. The designation of this sprout as "David their king," i.e., the king of the Israelites, points us back to Hos 3:5.

Verses 10-11

Israel the servant of Jahveh, i.e., the true Israel, faithful and devoted to God, need thus fear nothing, since their God will deliver them from the land of their captivity, and stand by them as their deliverer, so that they shall be able to dwell in peace and undisturbed security in their own land. For Jahveh will make a complete end of all the nations among whom Israel has been scattered; Israel, on the other hand, He shall certainly chastise, but למּשׁפּט (according to what is right, in due measure), that they may be made better by their punishment. As to the expression יסּר למּשׁפּט, see on Jer 10:24; for לא עשׂה כלה, see on Jer 4:27 and Jer 5:18 (אתך for אתּך, Jer 5:18); and lastly, on נקּה לא אנקּך, cf. Ex. 34:47, Num 14:18, Nah 1:3.
Jer 30:10 and Jer 30:11 are repeated in Jer 46:27-28, though with some slight changes.^[1]

Verses 12-17

Jer 30:12-17Because Israel has been severely chastised for his sins, the Lord will now punish his enemies, and heal Israel. - Jer 30:12."For thus saith Jahveh: It is ill with thy bruise, thy wound is painful. Jer 30:13.There is none to judge thy cause; for a sore, healing-plaster there is none for thee. Jer 30:14.All thy lovers have forgotten thee, thee they seek not; for I have wounded thee with the wound of an enemy, the chastisement of a cruel one, because of the multitude of thine iniquity, [because] thy sins were numerous. Jer 30:15. Why

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1535

criest thou over thy bruise  - [because] thy wound is bad? Because of the multitude of thine iniquity, [because] thy sins were numerous, have I done these things to thee. Jer 30:16.Therefore all those who devour thee shall be devoured; and all thine oppressors, they shall all go into captivity; and they who spoiled thee shall become a spoil, and those that plundered thee I will give up for plunder. Jer 30:17.For I will put a plaster on thee, and will heal thee of thy wounds, saith Jahveh; for they call thee an outcast, [and say], Zion is she [whom] none seeketh after."
This strophe is only a fuller expression of the idea set forth in Jer 30:11, that the Lord certainly chastises Israel, but will not make an end of him. The chastisement has commenced. From the wounds and blows which Israel has received, he lies motionless and helpless, getting neither sympathy nor aid from his lovers. The feminine suffix and the mention of lovers show that the address turns to the daughter of Zion. On the expression אנוּשׁ , "it is ill with thy bruise," cf. Jer 15:18. נחלה מכּה, "bad, incurable is the stroke which thou hast received," as in Jer 10:19; Jer 14:17. דּוּן דּין, "to execute justice;" cf. Jer 5:28; Jer 22:16. Hitzig well explains the meaning: "thy claims against thy heathen oppressors." למזור, although connected by the accents with what precedes, does not agree well with דּן דּינך; for מזור has not the meaning which has been attributed to it, of a "bandage," but, as derived from the verb זוּר, "to press a wound," signifies the wound that has been pressed together; see on Hos 5:13. Neither does the figure of the wound agree with the expression, "there is none to judge

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1536

thy cause," so that we might, with Umbreit, render the passage, "No one gives thee thy due, in pressing thy wounds;" while, as Graf says, " רפאות dissociated from למזור forms a useless synonym with תּעלה," and in Jer 46:11, where the thought is repeated, it is separated from the latter word. Accordingly, with Hitzig and Graf, we connect למזור  into one clause: "for the wound, there is no healing (or medicine)-no plaster." תּעלה is what is laid upon the wound, a plaster. "All thy lovers," i.e., the nations which were once allied with thee (cf. Jer 22:20, Jer 22:22), do not trouble themselves about thee, because I have smitten thee so heavily on account of the multitude of thy transgressions; cf. Jer 5:6; Jer 13:22. עצמוּ still depends on the preposition על, which continues its force, but as a conjunction. The idea that the Israelites have richly deserved their sufferings is still more plainly presented in Jer 30:15 : "Why criest thou, because thou hast brought this suffering on thee through thy sins?" אנוּשׁ also depends on על, which continues to exert its power in the sentence as a conjunction.

Verses 16-17

Therefore (i.e., because Israel, although punished for his sins, is destitute of help) will the Lord take pity on him. He will recompense to his oppressors and spoilers according to their deeds, and will heal his wounds. The enemies of Zion will now meet the fate which they have prepared for Zion. Those who, like rapacious animals, would devour Israel (see on Jer 2:3), shall be devoured, and all his oppressors shall go into captivity; cf. Jer 22:22. The Kethib שׁאסיך is the Aramaic form of the participle from  שׁאס for שׁסס; the Qeri substitutes the Hebrew form שׁסיך, after Jer 50:11, Isa 17:14. עלה ארכה, to put on a bandage, lay on a plaster. ארכה signifies, primarily, not a bandage, but, like the Arabic arîkah (according to Fleischer in Delitzsch on Isa 58:8), the new skin which forms over a wound as it heals, and (as is shown by the expression of Isaiah, ארכתך־תּצמח) proves the healing of the wound. Against the direct transference of the meaning of the word in Arabic to the Hebrew ארכה, without taking into consideration the passage in Isaiah just referred to, there is the objection that the word is always used in connection with עלה, "to be put on" (cf. Isa 8:22; 2Ch 24:13; Neh 4:1), or העלה, "to put on" (here and in Jer 33:6),

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1537

which is not the proper verb to be used in speaking of the formation of a new skin over a wound after suppuration has ceased. Hence the word in Hebrew seems to have received the derived sense of "a healing-plaster;" this is confirmed by the employment of the word תּעלה, "plaster," in Jer 30:13 and Jer 46:11. - The second כּי, Jer 30:17, is subordinate to the clause which precedes. "Because they called thee one rejected," i.e., because the enemies of Zion spoke of her contemptuously, as a city that has been forsaken of God, and the Lord will heal her wounds.

Verses 18-22

Jer 30:18-22Further explanation of the deliverance promised to Zion. - Jer 30:18."Thus saith Jahveh: Behold, I will turn the captivity of the tents of Jacob, and will take pity on his dwellings; and the city shall be built again upon its own hill, and the palace shall be inhabited after its own fashion. Jer 30:19.And there shall come forth from them praise and the voice of those who laugh; and I will multiply them, so that they shall not be few, and I will honour them, so that they shall not be mean. Jer 30:20.And his sons shall be as in former times, and his congregation shall be established before me, and I will punish all that oppress him. Jer 30:21.And his leader shall spring from himself, and his ruler shall proceed from his midst; and I will bring him near, so that he shall approach to me; for who is he that became surety for his life in drawing near to me? saith Jahveh. Jer 30:22.And ye shall become my people, and I will be your God."
The dwellings of Israel that have been laid waste, and the cities that have been destroyed, shall be restored and inhabited as formerly, so that songs of praise and tones of joy shall resound from them (Jer 30:18.). "The captivity of the tents of Jacob" means the miserable condition of the dwellings of Jacob, i.e., of all Israel; for "to turn the captivity" has everywhere a figurative sense, and signifies the turning of adversity and misery into prosperity and comfort; see on Jer 29:14. Hitzig is quite wrong in his rendering: "I bring back the captives of the tents of Jacob, i.e., those who have been carried away out of the tents." That "tents" does not stand for those who dwell in tents, but is a poetic expression for "habitations," is perfectly clear from the parallel "his dwellings." To "take

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1538

pity on the dwellings" means to "restore the dwellings that have been destroyed" (cf. Jer 9:18). The anarthrous עיר must not be restricted to the capital, but means every city that has been destroyed; here, the capital naturally claims the first consideration. "Upon its hills" is equivalent to saying on its former site, cf. Jos 11:13; it does not mean "on the mound made by its ruins," in support of which Nägelsbach erroneously adduces Deu 13:17. ארמון in like manner stands, in the most general way, for every palace. על־משׁפּטו does not mean "on the proper place," i.e., on an open, elevated spot on the hill (Hitzig), neither does it mean "on its right position" (Ewald); both of these renderings are against the usage of the words: but it signifies "according to its right" (cf. Deu 17:11), i.e., in accordance with what a palace requires, after its own fashion. ישׁב, to be inhabited, as in Jer 17:6, etc. "Out of them" refers to the cities and palaces. Thence proceeds, resounds praise or thanksgiving for the divine grace shown them (cf. Jer 33:11), and the voice, i.e., the tones or sounds, of those who laugh (cf. Jer 15:17), i.e., of the people living in the cities and palaces, rejoicing over their good fortune. "I will increase them, so that they shall not become fewer," cf. Jer 29:6; "I will bring them to honour (cf. Isa 8:22), so that they shall not be lightly esteemed." - In Jer 30:20. the singular suffixes refer to Jacob as a nation (Jer 30:18). "His sons" are the members of the nation; they become as they were previously, in former times - sicut olim sub Davide et Salmonoe, florentissimo rerum statu. "The congregation will be established before me," i.e., under my survey (תּכּון as in Ps. 102:29), i.e., they shall no more be shaken or moved from their position.

Verse 21

The expression "his prince will be out of him" is explained by the parallel clause, "his ruler will proceed from him." The meaning is, that the people will no longer be ruled or subdued by foreign masters, but be ruled by glorious princes, i.e., leaders endowed with princely glory, and these out of the midst of themselves. Herein is contained the truth, that the sovereignty of Israel, as restored, culminates in the kingdom of the Messiah. Yet the words employed are so general that we cannot restrict  אדּירו and משׁלו to the person of the Messiah. The idea is to be taken in a more general way: As Israel was ruled by princes

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1539

of the house of David, whom God had chosen, so will it again in the future have its own rulers, whom God will raise out of their midst and exalt gloriously. This is clear from the further statement, "I will cause him to approach, and he shall come near unto me." To affirm that these words do not refer to the ruler, but to the people, is a mistake that could be made only by those expositors who view the "ruler" as being none else than the Messiah. Yet the lxx and the Chaldee paraphrase understood the words as referring to the people; and in support of this view, it may be asserted that, in the Messianic period, Israel is to become a holy people (Jer 3:17), and attain its destiny of being a nation of priests (Exo 19:6), in reference to which it is called עם קרבו, Psa 148:14. But the context evidently requires us to refer the words to the king, with regard to whom one here looks for a further statement. The verb הקריב is the regular expression employed in reference to the approach on the part of the priests to Jahveh, cf. Num 16:5; and נגּשׁ in Exo 24:2 denotes the approach of Moses to Jahveh on Mount Sinai. The two verbs thus signify a bringing near and a coming near, which, under the old covenant, was the prerogative of those persons who were consecrated by the Lord to be servants in His sanctuary, but was denied the common people. As to the kings of Israel, in regard to this matter, the ordinance proclaimed concerning Joshua held good in reference to them also: "he shall stand before Eleazar, who shall inquire for him in a matter of Urim before Jahveh" (Num 27:21). Even a David could not approach into the immediate presence of the Lord to ask His will. This prerogative of the priests the Lord will, in the future, vouchsafe also to the princes of Israel, i.e., He will then put them in such a relation to Himself as no one may now presume to occupy, except at the risk of his life. This is shown by the succeeding sentence, which assigns the reason: "For who is there that stands surety for his heart, i.e., with his heart answers for the consequences of approaching me?" לב and not נפשׁ is named, as the seat of physical life, in so far as the heart is the place where the soul is alone with itself, and becomes conscious of all it does and suffers as its own (Oehler in Delitzsch's Psychology, p. 296 of Clark's Translation). The meaning is, that nobody will stake his spiritual-

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1540

moral life on any attempt to draw near to God, because a sinful man is destroyed before the holiness of the Divine Being. Whoever approaches into the presence of Jahveh must die; Num 8:19; Exo 19:21; Exo 34:3, etc.

Verse 22

Then Israel shall really become the people of the Lord, and the Lord shall be their God; thus the end of their divine calling shall be attained, and the salvation of Israel shall be complete; see on Jer 7:23.

Verses 23-24

Jer 30:23-24The wicked shall be destroyed by the fire of God's anger. - Jer 30:23."Behold, a whirlwind of Jahveh - wrath goeth forth - a sweeping whirlwind; it shall hurl down on the head of the wicked. Jer 30:24.The heat of Jahveh's anger shall not return till He hath done and till He hath established the purpose of His heart; in the end of the days ye shall consider it."
These two verses have been already met with in Jer 23:19 and Jer 23:20, with a few variations. Instead of מיחולל we have here מתגּורר, and אף־יהוה is here strengthened by prefixing חרון; on the other hand, בּינה, which is added in the preceding passage to intensify התבּוננוּ, is here omitted. The first of these changes is more of a formal than a real kind; for by the substitution of מתגּורר for מיחולל, the play in the latter word on יחוּל is merely disturbed, not "destroyed," since ר and ל are kindred sounds. התגּורר has been variously rendered. The meaning of "abiding," which is founded on 1Ki 17:20, is here unsuitable. Equally inappropriate is the meaning of "crowding together," or assembling in troops, which we find in Hos 7:14. It is more correct to derive it from גּרר, either in the sense of sweeping away or that of blustering, which are meanings derived from the fundamental one of producing harsh sounds in the throat, and transferred to the rushing sound made by the storm as it carries everything along with it. The second and third changes affect the sense. For, by the addition of חרון to אף, the idea of a judgment in wrath is intensified; and by dropping בּינה, less is made of the acuteness of perception. Both of these variations correspond to differences in the context of both passages. In Jer 23, where the words are applied to the false prophets, it was important to place emphasis on the statement that these men would, by experience, come to a

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1541

full knowledge of the reality of that judgment they denied; in this chapter, on the other hand, the idea of judgment in wrath must be expressly set aside. There is thus no good ground for considering these verses a later interpolation into the text, as Movers, Hitzig, and Nägelsbach think. Hitzig rejects these verses as spurious on the false ground that the judgment threatened in this chapter refers merely to the fall of the kingdom of Babylon, which Jeremiah could not have been able to know beforehand; Nägelsbach rejects them on the ground of other erroneous assumptions.^[2]
The only doubtful point regarding these verses is, whether they are to be connected, as Hengstenberg thinks, with what precedes, or with what follows, as Ewald supposes. In the former case, to the promise for the true Israel would be added a threat against those who only seemed to be Israel, - like the declaration in Isaiah, "There is no peace to the wicked:" this addition would thus be made, lest those for whom the promise was not intended should unwarrantably apply it to themselves. But, however well-founded the thought is, that every increasing manifestation of grace is invariably accompanied by an increased manifestation of righteousness, and though all the prophets clearly testify that the godless members of the covenant people have no share in the promised salvation, but instead are liable to judgment; yet there has not been such preparation made for the introduction of this thought as that we might be able at once to join these two verses to what precedes. The exclamation "Behold!" with which the words are introduced, rather form a sign that a new addition is to be made to the prophecy. We therefore view the threat in this verse as a resumption of the threat of judgment made in Jer 30:5., to which is attached, in Jer 31:1,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1542

the further development of the announcement of deliverance; but we refer the threat made in the verse not merely to the heathen as such, but to all "wicked ones," in such a way that it at the same time applies to the godless members of the covenant people, and signifies their exclusion from salvation. The Salvation for all the Families of Israel. - Ewald has well stated the connection of this chapter with the conclusion of the preceding, as follows: "In order that the old form of blessing, found in the books of Moses, and here given in Jer 31:22, may be fulfilled, the whirlwind of Jahveh, which must carry away all the unrighteous, will at last discharge itself, as has been already threatened, Jer 23:19; this must take place in order that there may be a fulfilment of that hope to all the tribes of Israel (both kingdoms)." Jer 31:1. announces deliverance for all the families of Israel, but afterwards it is promised to both divisions of the people separately - first, in vv. 2-22, to the ten tribes, who have been exiles the longest; and then, in a more brief statement, Jer 31:23-26, to the kingdom of Judah: to this, again, there is appended, Jer 31:27-40, a further description of the nature of the deliverance in store for the two houses of Israel.

Chap. 31

Verses 1-2

Jer 31:1-2The deliverance for all Israel, and the readmission of the ten tribes. - Jer 31:1. "At that time, saith Jahveh, will I be a God to all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people. Jer 31:2. Thus saith Jahveh: A people escaped from the sword found grace in the wilderness. Let me go to give him rest, even Israel. Jer 31:3. From afar hath Jahve appeared unto me, and with everlasting love have I loved thee; therefore have I continued my favour towards thee. Jer 31:4. Once more will I build thee up, and thou shalt be built, O virgin of Israel; once more shalt thou adorn [thyself] with thy tabrets, and go forth in the dance of those that make merry. Jer 31:5. Once more shalt thou plant vineyards on the ills of Samaria; planters will plant them, and apply them to common use. Jer 31:6. For there is a day [when] watchmen will cry on Mount Ephraim: Arise ye, and let us go up to Zion, to Jahveh our God!"

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1543

The expression "At that time" refers to Jer 30:24, "in the end of the days," which means the Messianic future. The announcement of deliverance itself is continued by resumption of the promise made in Jer 30:22; the transposition of the two portions of the promise is to be remarked. Here, "I will be a God to them" stands first, because the restoration and perfection of Israel have their only foundation in the love of God and in the faithfulness with which He keeps His covenant, and it is only through this gracious act that Israel again becomes the people of God. "All the families of Israel" are the families of the whole twelve tribes - of the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah, separated since the death of Solomon. After this announcement of deliverance for the whole of Israel, the address turns first to Israel of the ten tribes, and continues to treat longest of them, "because, judging from appearances, they seem irrecoverably lost - for ever rejected by the Lord" (Hengstenberg). Jer 31:2 is variously explained. Ewald, following Raschi and others, refers the words 'מצא חן וגו to the leading of Israel out of Egypt: once on a time, in the Arabian desert, the people that had just barely escaped the sword of the Egyptians nevertheless found grace, when Jahveh, as it were, went to make a quiet dwelling-place for them. The love which He displayed towards them at that time He has since continued, and thus He will now once more bring back His people out of the midst of strangers. This view of the passage is supported by the use of the perfects in Jer 31:2 and Jer 31:3, in contrast with the imperfect, "again will I build thee," Jer 31:4, and the employment of the expression "in the desert;" cf. Jer 2:2; Hos 13:4-5. But "the people of those who have escaped the sword" is an expression that cannot be reconciled with it. Rashi, indeed, understands this as referring to the sword of the Egyptians and Amalekites; but the thought that Israel, led out of Egypt through the Arabian desert, was a people that had survived or escaped the sword, is one met with nowhere else in the Old Testament, and is quite inapplicable to the condition of the people of Israel when they were led out of Egypt. Although Pharaoh wished to exterminate the people of Israel through hard servile labour, and through such measures as the order to kill all male children when they were born, yet he did not make

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1544

an exhibition of his wrath against Israel by the sword, neither did he show his anger thus at the Red Sea, where he sought to bring Israel back to Egypt by force. There God shielded His people from the attack of Pharaoh, as He did in the battle against the Amalekites, so that Israel was led through the desert as a whole people, not as a remnant. The designation, "a people escaped from the sword," unconditionally requires us to refer the words to the deliverance of the Israelites from exile; these were only a remnant of what they had formerly been, since the greater portion of them perished, partly at the downfall of the kingdom, and partly in exile, by the sword of the enemy. Hence the perfects in Jer 31:2 and Jer 31:3 are prophetic, and used of the divine counsel, which precedes its execution in time. By using the expression "in the desert," Jeremiah makes an allusion to Israel's being led through the Arabian desert. The restoration of Israel to Canaan, from their exile among the nations, is viewed under the figure of their Exodus from Egypt into the land promised to their fathers, as in Hos 2:16.; and the Exodus from the place of banishment is, at the same time, represented as having already occurred, so that Israel is again on the march to his native land, and is being safely conducted through the desert by his God. There is as little ground for thinking that there is reference here made to the desert lying between Assyria or Babylon and Palestine, as there is for Hitzig's referring שׂרידי חרב to the sword of the Medes and Persians. - The inf. abs. הלוך is used instead of the first person of the imperative (cf. 1Ki 22:30), to express a summons addressed by God to Himself: "I will go." See Gesenius, §131, 4, b,   γ. ] The suffix in הרגּיעו points out the object (Israel) by anticipation: "to bring him to rest." רגע in the Hiphil usually means to be at rest, to rest (Deu 28:65); here, to give rest, bring to rest.

Verse 3

The people already see in spirit how the Lord is accomplishing His purpose, Jer 31:2. "From afar (the prophet speaks in the name of the people, of which he views himself as one) hath Jahveh appeared unto me." So long as Israel languished in exile, the Lord had withdrawn from him, kept Himself far off. Now the prophet sees Him appearing again. "From afar," i.e., from Zion, where the Lord is viewed as enthroned, the God of His people (Psa 14:7),

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1545

sitting there to lead them back into their land. But the Lord at once assures the people, who have been waiting for Him, of His everlasting love. Because He loves His people with everlasting love, therefore has He kept them by His grace, so that they were not destroyed. משׁך, to draw, keep, restrain; hence משׁך חסד, prolongare gratiam, Psa 36:11; Psa 109:12, but construed with ל of a person; here, with a double accusative, to restrain any one, to preserve him constantly by grace.

Verse 4

Israel is now to be built up again, i.e., to be raised to a permanent condition of ever-increasing prosperity; cf. Jer 12:16. The additional clause, "and thou shalt be built," confirms this promise. The "virgin of Israel" is the congregation of Israel; cf. Jer 14:17. A new and joyful phase in the life of the people is to begin: such is the meaning of the words, "with tabrets shalt thou adorn thyself, and thou shalt go forth in the dance of those who make merry." In this manner were the popular feasts celebrated in Israel; cf. Jdg 11:34, Ps. 66:26.

Verse 5

Jer 31:5 "The mountains of Samaria," i.e., of the kingdom of Ephraim (1Ki 13:22; 2Ki 17:24), shall again be planted with vineyards, and the planters, too, shall enjoy the fruits in peace - not plant for strangers, so that enemies shall destroy the fruits; cf. Isa 62:8., Isa 65:21. The words "planters plant and profane" (i.e., those who plant the vineyards are also to enjoy the fruit of them) are to be explained by the law in Lev 19:23., according to which the fruits of newly planted fruit trees, and according to Jdg 9:27, vines also, were not to be eaten during the first three years; those of the fourth year were to be presented as a thank-offering to the Lord; and only those of the fifth year were to be applied to common use. This application to one's own use is expressed in Deu 20:6 by חלּל, properly, to make common.

Verse 6

Jer 31:6 is attached to the foregoing by כּי, which introduces the reason of what has been stated. The connection is as follows: This prosperous condition of Ephraim is to be a permanent one; for the sin of Jeroboam, the seduction of the ten tribes from the sanctuary of the Lord, shall not continue, but Ephraim shall once more, in the future, betake himself to Zion, to the Lord his God. "There is a day," i.e., there comes a day, a time, when watchmen call. נצרים here denotes the watchmen who were posted

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1546

on the mountains, that they might observe and given notice of the first appearance of the crescent of the moon after new-moon, so that the festival of the new-moon and the feasts connected with it might be fixed; cf. Keil's Bibl. Archäol. ii. §74, Anm. 9 see also the articles Mond and Neumond in Herzog's Real-Encykl. vols. ix. and x.; New-moon in Smith's Bible Dictionary, vol. ii.]. עלה, to go up to Jerusalem, which was pre-eminent among the cities of the land as to spiritual matters.

Verses 7-14

Jer 31:7-14The restoration of Israel. - Jer 31:7. "For thus saith Jahveh: Shout for joy over Jacob, and cry out over the head of the nations! Make known, praise, and say, I Jahveh, save Thy people, the remnant of Israel! Jer 31:8. Behold, I will bring them out of the land of the north, and will gather them from the sides of the earth. Among them are the blind and lame, the woman with child and she that hath born, together; a great company shall they return hither. Jer 31:9. With weeping shall they come, and with supplications will I lead them: I will bring them to streams of water, by a straight way in which they shall not stumble; for I have become a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my first-born. Jer 31:10.Hear the word of Jahveh, ye nations, and declare among the islands far off, and say: He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd his flock. Jer 31:11.For Jahveh hath redeemed Israel and ransomed him out of the hand of one stronger than he. Jer 31:12.And they shall come and sing with joy on the height of Zion, and come like a flood to the goodness of Jahveh, because of corn, and new wine, and fresh oil, and the young of the flock and the herd; and their soul shall be like a well-watered garden, neither shall they pine away any more. Jer 31:13.Then shall the virgin rejoice in the dance, and young men and old men together; and I will turn their mourning to joy, and will comfort them, and will cause them to rejoice after their sorrow. Jer 31:14.And I will satiate the soul of the priests with fat, and my people shall be satisfied with my goodness, saith Jahveh."
In order to set forth the greatness of the salvation which the Lord will prepare for Israel, so long outcast, Israel is commanded to make loud jubilation, and exhorted to approach the Lord with entreaties for the fulfilment of His purpose of grace. The

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1547

statement regarding this salvation is introduced by כּי, "for," since the description, given in this strophe, of Israel's being led back and re-established, furnishes the actual proof that the nation shall be built up again. The summons to rejoice comes from Jahveh (since, by His gracious dealings, He gives the people material for praise), and is addressed to the members of the nation. These are to rejoice over Jacob, i.e., over the glorious destiny before the people. צהלו  is translated by Hitzig: "shout at the head of the nations," i.e., making a beginning among them all; but this is incorrect and against the context. The thought that many other enslaved nations besides Israel will rejoice over the fall of their oppressors, has not the least foundation in this passage. The summons to the nations, which follows in Jer 31:19, is simply a command to make known God's purpose regarding the deliverance of Israel. Of course, בּראשׁ, taken literally and by itself, may be rendered "at the head" (1Ki 21:12; Amo 6:7, etc.); but in this place, the expression of which it forms the first word is the object of צהלו, which is construed with בּ, "to rejoice over something," Isa 24:4. "The head of the nations" signifies "the first of the nations" (ראשׁית הגּוים, Amo 6:1), i.e., the most exalted among the nations. Such is the designation given to Israel, because God has chosen them before all the nations of the earth to be His peculiar people (Deu 7:6; 2Sa 7:23.), made them the highest over (עליון על, Deu 26:19) all nations. This high honour of Israel, which seemed to have been taken from him by his being delivered over to the power of heathen nations, is now to appear again. השׁמיעוּ, "make to be heard, sing praise," are to be combined into one thought, "sing praise loudly" (so that people may hear it). The words of praise, "Save Thy people, O Jahveh," form rather the expression of a wish than of a request, just as in many psalms, e.g., Ps. 20:10; Psa 28:9, especially Psa 118:25 in הושׁיאה נא, with which Jesus was greeted on His entry into Jerusalem, Mat 21:9 (Graf). - To the rejoicing and praise the Lord replies with the promise that He will lead back His people out of the most distant countries of the north, - every one, even the feeble and frail, who ordinarily would not have strength for so long a journey, "Hither," i.e., to Palestine, where Jeremiah

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1548

wrote the promise; cf. Jer 3:18; Jer 16:15. "With weeping," i.e., with tears of joy, and with contrition of heart over favour so undeserved, they come, and God leads them with weeping, "amidst earnest prayers to the God they have found again, as a lost son returns to the arms of his father" (Umbreit). Hitzig and Graf would connect בּתחנוּנים with what precedes, and combine "I will lead them, I will bring them;" by this arrangement, it is said, the careful guidance of God, in leaving nothing behind, is properly set forth. But the symmetry of the verse is thereby destroyed; and the reason assigned for this construction (which is opposed by the accents), viz., that תּחנוּנים does not mean miseratio, clementia, will not stand the test. As in Isa 55:12 it is the being brought בּשׂמחה that is the chief point, so here, it is the bringing בּתחנוּנים, amidst weeping, i.e., fervent prayer. At the same time, the Lord will care like a father for their refreshment and nurture; He will lead them to brooks of water, so that they shall not suffer thirst in the desert (Isa 48:21), and guide them by a straight (i.e., level) road, so that they shall not fall. For He shows Himself again to Israel as a father, one who cares for them like a father (cf. Jer 3:19; Deu 32:6; Isa 63:6), and treats Ephraim as His first-born. "The first-born of Jahveh," in Exo 4:22, means the people of Israel as compared with the other nations of the earth. This designation is here transferred to Ephraim as the head and representative of the ten tribes; but it is not likely that there is in this any allusion to the preference which Jacob displayed for the sons of Joseph, Gen 49:22. compared with Jer 31:4 (Venema, J. D. Michaelis, Nägelsbach) - the advantage they obtained consisting in this, that Ephraim and Manasseh were placed on an equal footing with Jacob's sons as regards inheritance in the land of Canaan; in other words, they were elevated to the dignity of being founders of tribes. There is no trace in this prophecy of any preference given to Ephraim before Judah, or of the ten tribes before the two tribes of the kingdom of Judah. That the deliverance of Ephraim (Israel) from exile is mentioned before that of Judah, and is further more minutely described, is simply due to the fact, already mentioned, that the ten tribes, who had long languished in exile, had the least hope, according to man's estimation, of deliverance. The

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1549

designation of Ephraim as the first-born of Jahveh simply shows that, in the deliverance of the people, Ephraim is in no respect to be behind Judah, - that they are to receive their full share in the Messianic salvation of the whole people; in other words, that the love which the Lord once displayed towards Israel, when He delivered them out of the power of Pharaoh, is also to be, in the future, displayed towards the ten tribes, who were looked on as lost. The nature of fatherhood and sonship, as set forth in the Old Testament, does not contain the element of the Spirit's testimony to our spirit, but only the idea of paternal care and love, founded on the choosing of Israel out of all the nations to be the peculiar people of God; see on Exo 4:22 and Isa 63:16; Isa 64:7. בּכרי is substantially the same as יקּיר been בּן and ילד שׁעשׁעים in Jer 31:20.

Verses 10-11

The most remote of the heathen, too, are to be told that Jahveh will free His people from their hands, gather them again, and highly favour them, lest they should imagine that the God of Israel has not the power to save His people, and that they may learn to fear Him as the Almighty God, who has given His people into their power, not from any inability to defend them, but merely for the purpose of chastising them for their sins. איּים are the islands in, and countries lying along the coast of, the Mediterranean Sea; in the language of prophecy, the word is used as a designation of the distant countries of the west; cf. Psa 72:10; Isa 41:1, Isa 41:5; Isa 42:12, etc. On Jer 31:10, cf. Jer 23:3; Exo 34:12., Isa 40:11. "Stronger than he," as in Psa 35:10; the expression is here used of the heathen master of the world.

Verses 12-14

Thus led by the Lord through the wilderness (Jer 31:9), the redeemed shall come rejoicing to the sacred height of Zion (see on Jer 17:12), and thence go in streams, i.e., scatter themselves over the country like a stream, for the goodness of the Lord, i.e., for the good things which He deals out to them in their native land. "To the goodness of Jahveh" is explained by "because of corn," etc. (על for אל), cf. Hos 3:5. As to the good things of the country, cf. Deu 8:8. Their soul will be like a well-watered garden, an emblem of the fulness and freshness of living power; cf. Isa 58:11.

Verse 13

Then shall young men and old live in unclouded joy, and forget all their former sorrow. "In the dance" refers

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1550

merely to the virgins: to "young men and old together," only the notion of joy is to be repeated from the context.

Verse 14

The priests and the people will refresh themselves with the fat, i.e., the fat pieces of the thank-offerings, because numerous offerings will be presented to the Lord in consequence of the blessing received from Him.

Verses 15-22

Jer 31:15-22Changing of sorrow into joy, because Ephraim will turn to the Lord, and the Lord will lead him back. - Jer 31:15."Thus saith Jahveh: A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation, bitter weeping, Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are not. Jer 31:16.Thus saith Jahveh: Restrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears; for there is a reward for thy work, saith Jahveh, and they shall return from the land of the enemy. Jer 31:17.And there is hope for thy latter end, saith Jahveh, that children shall return to thy border. Jer 31:18.I have certainly heard Ephraim complaining, Thou hast chastised me and I was chastised, like a calf not tamed. Turn me that I may turn, for Thou, O Jahveh, art my God. Jer 31:19.For, after I return I repent, and after I have been taught I smite upon [my] thigh; I am ashamed, yea, and confounded, because I bear the reproach of my youth. Jer 31:20.Is Ephraim a son dear to me, or a child of delight, that, as often as I speak against him, I do yet certainly remember him? Therefore my bowels move for him; I shall surely pity him, saith Jahveh. Jer 31:21.Set thee up way-marks, put up posts for thyself; set thine heart to the highway, the road [by which] thou camest: return, O virgin of Israel, return to these cities of thine. Jer 31:22.How long wilt thou wander about, O backsliding daughter? For Jahveh hath created a new [thing] in the earth: a woman shall encompass a man."
In this strophe the promise is further confirmed by carrying out the thought, that Israel's release from his captivity shall certainly take place, however little prospect there is of it at present. For Israel will come to an acknowledgment of his sins, and the Lord will then once more show him His love. The hopeless condition of Israel is dramatically set forth in Jer 31:15.: Rachel, the mother of Joseph, and thus the ancestress of Ephraim, the chief tribe of the Israelites who had

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1551

revolted from the royal house of David, weeps bitterly over the loss of her children, the ten tribes who have been carried away into exile; and the Lord addresses consolation to her, with the promise that they shall return out of the land of the enemy. "A voice is heard" (נשׁמע, participle, to show duration). The "voice" is more fully treated of in the second part of the verse: loud lamentation and bitter weeping. There is a difficulty connected with בּרמה. The lxx took it to be the name of the city Ramah, now called er - Râm, in the tribe of Benjamin, five English miles north from Jerusalem, on the borders of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel (1Ki 15:17), although this city is elsewhere written with the article (הרמה), not only in the historical notices found in Jer 40:1, Jos 18:25; Jdg 4:5, etc., but also in prophetical addresses, as in Hos 6:8; Isa 10:29. In this passage it cannot be a mere appellative ("on a height"), as in 1Sa 22:6; Eze 16:24; nor can we think of Ramah in Naphtali (Jos 19:36, also הרמה), for this latter city never figures in history like the Ramah of Samuel, not far from Gibeah; see on Jos 18:25 and 1Sa 1:1. But why is the lamentation of Rachel heard at Ramah? Most expositors reply, because the tomb of Rachel was in the divinity of Ramah; in support of this they cite 1Sa 10:2. Nägelsbach, who is one of these, still maintains this view with the utmost confidence. But this assumption is opposed to Gen 35:16 and Gen 35:19, where it is stated that Rachel died and was buried on the way to Bethlehem, and not far from the town (see on Genesis, l.c.), which is about five miles south from Jerusalem, and thus far from Ramah. Nor is any support for this view to be got from 1Sa 10:2, except by making the groundless assumption, that Saul, while seeking for the asses of his father, came to Samuel in his native town; whereas, in the account given in that chapter, he is merely said to have sought for Samuel in a certain town, of which nothing more is stated, and to have inquired at him; see on 1Sa 10:2. We must therefore reject, as arbitrary and groundless, all attempts to fix the locality of Rachel's sepulchre in the neighbourhood of Ramah (Nägelsbach); in the same way we must treat the assertion of Thenius, Knobel, Graf, etc., that the Ephratah of Gen 35:16, Gen 35:19, is the same as the Ephron of 2Ch 13:19, which was situated

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1552

near Bethel; so, too, must we deal with the statements, that Ephratah, i.e., Bethlehem, is to be expunged from the text of Gen 35:9 and 48 as a false gloss, and that the tradition, attested in Mat 2:18, as to the situation of Rachel's sepulchre in the vicinity of Bethlehem, is incorrect. Nor does the passage of Jeremiah now before us imply that Rachel's sepulchre was near Ramah. Rachel does not weep at Ramah over her lost children, either because she had been buried there, or because it was in Ramah of Benjamin that the exiles were assembled, according to Jer 40:1 (Hitzig, and also Delitzsch on Gen 35:20). For it was the Jews who were to be carried away captive that were gathered together at Ramah, whereas it was over Israelites or Ephraimites that had been carried into exile that Rachel weeps. The lamentation of Rachel is heard at Ramah, as the most loftily situated border-town of the two kingdoms, whence the wailing that had arisen sounded far and near, and could be heard in Judah. Nor does she weep because she has learned something in her tomb of the carrying away of the people, but as their common mother, as the beloved spouse of Jacob, who in her married life so earnestly desired children. Just as the people are often included under the notion of the "daughter of Zion," as their ideal representative, so the great ancestress of Ephraim, Benjamin, and Manasseh is here named as the representative of the maternal love shown by Israel in the pain felt when the people are lost. The sing. כּי איננּוּ signifies, "for not one of them is left." - This verse is quoted by Matthew (Mat 2:18), after relating the story of the murder of the children at Bethlehem, with the introductory formula, τότε ἐπληρώθη τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ  ̓Ιερεμίου: from this the older theologians (cf. Calovii Bibl. illustr. ad Jer. l.c.) conclude that Jeremiah directly prophesied that massacre of the children committed by Herod. But this inference cannot be allowed; it will not fit in with the context of the prophecy. The expression ἐπληρώθη, used by Matthew, only shows that the prophecy of Jeremiah received a new fulfilment through that act of Herod. Of course, we must not reduce the typical reference of the prophecy to that event at Bethlehem simply to this, that the wailing of the mothers of Bethlehem over their murdered children was as great as the lamentation made when the people were carried into exile.

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1553

Typology rather assumes a causal connection between the two events. The destruction of the people of Israel by the Assyrians and Chaldeans is a type of the massacre of the infants at Bethlehem, in so far as the sin which brought the children of Israel into exile laid a foundation for the fact that Herod the Idumean became king over the Jews, and wished to destroy the true King and Saviour of Israel that he might strengthen his own dominion. Cf. Fr. Kleinschmidt, die typolog. Citate der vier Evangelien, 1861, S. 10ff.; Fairbairn's Typology, fifth edition, vol. i. pp. 452-3.]
The Lord will put an end to this wailing. "Cease thy weeping," He cries to the sorrowing ones, "for there is a reward for thy labour" (almost identical with 2Ch 15:7). פּעלּה is the maternal labour of birth and rearing of children. The reward consists in this, that the children shall return out of the land of the enemy into their own land. Jer 31:17 states the same thing in parallel clauses, to confirm the promise. On the expression "hope for thy latter end," cf. Jer 29:11. בּנים without the article, as in Hos 11:10, etc.; cf. Ewald, §277, b. This hope is grounded on the circumstance that Israel will become aware, through suffering, that he is punished for his sins, and, repenting of these sins, will beseech his God for favour. The Lord already perceives this repentant spirit and acknowledgment of sin. ואוּסר does not mean "I had myself chastised," or "I learned chastisement" (Hitzig), but "I was chastised," like an untamed calf, i.e., one not trained to bear the yoke and to endure labour. On this figure, cf. Hos 10:11. The recognition of suffering as chastisement by God excites a desire after amelioration and amendment. But since man cannot accomplish these through his own powers, Israel prays, "Lead me back," sc. from my evil way, i.e., turn me. He finds himself constrained to this request, because he feels regret for his apostasy from God. אחרי שׁוּבי in this connection can only mean, "after I turned," sc. from Thee, O Lord my God; on this meaning of שׁוּב, cf. Jer 8:4. הוּדע, to be brought to understanding through punishment, i.e., to become wise. To smite the thighs is a token of terror and horror; cf. Eze 21:17. On בּשׁתּי וגם נכלמתּי cf. Isa 45:16. "The shame of my youth" is that which I brought on myself in my youth through the

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1554

sins I then committed. On this confession generally, cf. the similar one in Jer 3:21. - Thereafter the Lord replies, Jer 31:20, with the question, whether Ephraim is so dear a son to Him that, as often as He has spoken against him, i.e., uttered hard words of condemnation, He still, or again, thinks of him. ילד שׁעשׁעים, "a child of delight," whom one fondles; cf. Isa 5:7. The clause explanatory of the question, "for as often as," etc., is taken in different ways. דּבּר may signify, "to speak about one," or "to speak against one," or "to pay addresses to one," i.e., to court him: 1Sa 25:39; Sol 8:8. Hitzig applies the last meaning to the expression, and translates, "as often as I have paid my suit to him;" according to this view, the basis of the representation of Jahveh's relation to the people is that of a husband to his wife. But this meaning of the verb does not by any means suit the present context, well established though it is by the passages that have been adduced. Ephraim is here represented as a son, not a virgin to whom Jahveh could pay suit. Hence we must take the expression in the sense of "speaking against" some one. But what Jahveh says against Ephraim is no mere threatening by words, but a reprimand by deeds of judgment. The answer to the question is to be inferred from the context: If the Lord, whenever He is constrained to punish Ephraim, still thinks of him, then Ephraim must be a son dear to Him. But this is not because of his conduct, as if he caused Him joy by obedience and faithful attachment, but in consequence of the unchangeable love of God, who cannot leave His son, however much grief he causes his Father. "Therefore," i.e., because he is a son to whom Jahveh shows the fulness of His paternal love, all His kindly feelings towards him are now excited, and He desires to show compassion on him. On המוּ מעי cf. Isa 16:11 and Isa 63:15. Under "bowels" are included especially the heart, liver, reins, the noblest organs of the soul. The expression is strongly anthropopathic, and denotes the most heartfelt sympathy. This fellow-feeling manifests itself in the form of pity, and actually as deliverance from misery.
The Lord desires to execute this purpose of His everlasting love. Jer 31:21. Israel is required to prepare himself for return, and to go home again into his own cities. "Set thee up way

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1555

marks." ציּוּן, in 2Ki 23:17 and Eze 39:15, "a tombstone," probably a stone pillar, which could also serve as a way-mark. תּמרוּרים is not from מרר as in Jer 31:15, but from תּמר, and has the same meaning as תּימרה, Joe 3:3, Talm. תּמּוּר, a pillar, Arab. t̀âmîrun, pl., cippi, signa in desertis. "Set thy heart," i.e., turn thy mind to the road, the way you have gone (on הלכתּי see Jer 2:20), not, that you may not miss it, but because it leads thee home. "Return to these cities of thine." "These" implies that the summons issues from Palestine. Moreover, the separate clauses of this verse are merely a poetic individualization of the thought that Israel is to think seriously of returning; and, inasmuch as this return to Palestine presupposes return to the Lord, Israel must first turn with the heart to his God. Then, in Jer 31:22, follows the exhortation not to delay. The meaning of התחמּק is educed from Sol 5:6, where חמק signifies to turn one's self round; hence the Hithpael means to wander about here and there, uncertain what to do. This exhortation is finally enforced by the statement, "Jahveh creates a new thing on earth" (cf. Isa 43:19). This novelty is, "a woman will encompass a man." With regard to the meaning of these words, about which there is great dispute, this much is evident from the context, that they indicate a transformation of things, a new arrangement of the relations of life. This new arrangement of things which Jahveh brings about is mentioned as a motive which should rouse Ephraim (= Israel) to return without delay to the Lord and to his cities. If we keep this in mind, we shall at once set aside as untenable such interpretations as that of Luther in his first translation of 1532-38, "those who formerly behaved like women shall be men," which Ewald has revived in his rendering, "a woman changing into a man," or that of Schnurrer, Rosenmüller, Gesenius, Maurer, "the woman shall protect the man," or that of Nägelsbach, "the woman shall turn the man to herself." The above-mentioned general consideration, we repeat, is sufficient to set aside these explanations, quite apart from the fact that none of them can be lexically substantiated; for סובב neither means to "turn one's self, vertere," nor to "protect," nor to "cause to return" (as if סובב

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1556

were used for שׁובב). Deu 32:10 is adduced to prove the meaning of protection; but the word there means to go about fondling and cherishing. Neither the transmutation of the female into a male, or of a weak woman into a strong man, nor the protection of the man by a woman, nor the notion that the strong succumbs to the weak, forms an effectual motive for the summons to Israel to return; nor can we call any of them a new creative act effected by Jahveh, or a new arrangement of things. But we must utterly reject the meaning of the words given by Castle, le Clerc, and Hitzig, who apply them to the unnatural circumstance, that a woman makes her suit to a man, even where by the woman is understood the virgin of Israel, and by the man, Jahveh. Luther gave the correct rendering in his editions of 1543 and 1545, "the woman shall encompass the man," - only, "embrace" (Ger. umfangen) might express the sense better than "encompass" (Ger. umgeben). נקבה is nomen sexus, "femella, a female;" גּבר, a "man," also "proles mascula," not according to the sexual relation (=זכר), but with the idea of strength. Both in the choice of these words and by the omission of the article, the relation is set forth in its widest generality; the attention is thereby steadily directed to its fundamental nature. The woman, the weak and tender being, shall lovingly embrace the man, the strong one. Hengstenberg reverses the meaning of the words when he renders them, "the strong one shall again take the weak into his closest intercourse, under his protection, loving care." Many expositors, including Hengstenberg and Hitzig of moderns, have rightly perceived that the general idea has been set forth with special reference to the relation between the woman, Israel, and the man, Jahveh.
Starting with this view, which is suggested by the context, the older expositors explained the words of the conception and birth of Christ by a virgin; cf. Corn. a Lapide, Calovii Bibl. ill., Cocceius, and Pfeiffer, dubia vex. p. 758ff. Thus, for example, the Berleburger Bibel gives the following explanation: "A woman or virgin - not a married woman - will encompass, i.e., carry and contain in her body, the man who is to be a vanquisher of all and to surpass all in strength." This explanation cannot be set aside by the simple remark, "that here there would be set forth the very feature

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1557

in the birth of Christ by a virgin which is not peculiar to it as compared with others;" for this "superficial remark" does not in the least touch the real point to be explained. But it may very properly be objected, that סובב has not the special meaning of conceiving in a mother's womb. On this ground we can also set down as incorrect the other explanation of the words in the Berleburger Bibel, that the text rather speaks of "the woman who is the Jewish Church, and who, in the spirit of faith, is to bear Christ as the mighty God, Isa 9:6, in the likeness of a man, Rev 12:1-2." However, these explanations are nearer the truth than any that have been offered since. The general statement, "a woman shall encompass (the) man," i.e., lovingly embrace him - this new relation which Jahveh will bring about in place of the old, that the man encompasses the wife, loving, providing for, protecting her - can only be referred, agreeably to the context, to change of relation between Israel and the Lord. סובב, "to encompass," is used tropically, not merely of the mode of dealing on the part of the Lord to His people, the faithful, - of the protection, the grace, and the aid which He grants to the pious ones, as in Psa 32:7, Psa 32:10; Deu 32:10, - but also of the dealings of men with divine things. אסובבה מזבּחך, Psa 26:6, does not mean, "I will go round Thine altar," in a circle or semicircle as it were, but, "I will keep to Thine altar," instead of keeping company with the wicked; or more correctly, "I will surround Thine altar," making it the object of my care, of all my dealings, - I will make mine own the favours shown to the faithful at Thine altar. In the verse now before us, סובב signifies to encompass with love and care, to surround lovingly and carefully, - the natural and fitting dealing on the part of the stronger to the weak and those who need assistance. And the new thing that God creates consists in this, that the woman, the weaker nature that needs help, will lovingly and solicitously surround the man, the stronger. Herein is expressed a new relation of Israel to the Lord, a reference to a new covenant which the Lord, Jer 31:31., will conclude with His people, and in which He deals so condescendingly towards them that they can lovingly embrace Him. This is the substance of the Messianic meaning in the words. The conception of the Son of God in the womb of the

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1558

Virgin Mary is not expressed in them either directly or indirectly, even though we were allowed to take סובב in the meaning of "embrace." This new creation of the Lord is intended to be, and can be, for Israel, a powerful motive to their immediate return to their God.

Verses 23-25

Jer 31:23-25The re-establishment and blessing of Judah. - Jer 31:23."Thus saith Jahveh of hosts, the God of Israel: Once more shall they say this word in the land of Judah and in its cities, when I turn their captivity: 'Jahveh bless thee, O habitation of righteousness, O mountain of holiness!' Jer 31:24.And there shall dwell in it, [in] Judah and all its cities together, husbandmen and [those who] move about with the flock. Jer 31:25.For I have satiated the weary soul, and I have filled every languishing soul. Jer 31:26.Because of this I awoke and looked, and my sleep was sweet unto me."
The prophecy which treats of Judah alone is condensed, but states much in few words - not merely the restitutio in statum integritatis, but also rich blessing thereafter. "May Jahveh bless thee" is a benediction, equivalent to "may you be blessed;" cf. Psa 128:5; Psa 134:3. נוה צדק does not mean "habitation of salvation," but "habitation of righteousness;" cf. Isa 1:21, where it is said of Jerusalem that righteousness formerly dwelt in it. This state of matters is again to exist; Jerusalem is again to become a city in which righteousness dwells. "The holy mountain" is Zion, including Moriah, where the Lord had set up His throne. That the designation "the holy mountain" was applied to the whole of Jerusalem cannot be made out from Psa 2:6; Psa 48:2., Isa 11:9; Isa 27:13, which have been adduced to prove the assertion. The prayer for the blessing implies that Zion will again be the seat of the Divine King of His people. Jer 31:24. "There dwell in it (in the land of Judah) Judah and all his towns," i.e., the population of Judah and of all its towns, as "husbandmen and (those who) pasture flocks," i.e., each one pursuing undisturbed his own peaceful employment, agriculture and cattle-rearing, and (Jer 31:25) so blessed in these callings that they are kept from every need and want. דּאבה may either be viewed as the perfect, before which the relative is to be supplied, or an adjectival form imitated from the Aramaic participle,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1559

masc. דּאב.

Verse 26

Thereupon the prophet awoke from his ecstatic sleep, and said, "My sleep was pleasant" (cf. Pro 3:24). Very many expositors, including Rosenmüller, Umbreit, and Neumann among the moderns, understand the words, "therefore (or, because of this) I awoke," etc., as referring to God, because in what precedes and follows Jahveh speaks, and because God is sometimes, in the Psalms, called on to awake, e.g., Psa 7:7; Psa 35:23; Psa 44:24, etc. But it has been properly objected to this, that the words, "my sleep was sweet" (pleasant), are inappropriate as utterances of God, inasmuch as He does not sleep; nowhere in Scripture is sleep attributed to God, and the summons to awake merely implies the non-interference on the part of God in the affairs of His people. Moreover, we would need to refer the sleeping of God, mentioned in this verse, to His dealing towards Israel during the exile, in such a way that His conduct as a powerful judge would be compared to a sweet sleep - which is inconceivable. As little can the verse be supposed to contain words of the people languishing in exile, as Jerome has taken them. For the people could not possibly compare the time of oppression during the exile to a pleasant sleep. There is thus nothing left for us but to take this verse, as the Targum, Raschi, Kimchi, Venema, Dahler, Hitzig, Hengstenberg, and others have done, as a remark by the prophet regarding his feelings when he received this revelation; and we must accept something like the paraphrase of Tholuck (die Propheten, S. 68): "Because of such glorious promises I awoke to reflect on them, and my ecstatic sleep delighted me." This view is not rendered less tenable by the objection that Jeremiah nowhere says God had revealed Himself to him in a dream, and that, in what precedes, there is not to be found any intimation that what he sets forth appeared to him as a vision. For neither is there any intimation, throughout the whole prophecy, that he received it while in a waking state. The command of God, given Jer 30:2 at the first, to write in a book the words which Jahveh spoke to him, implies that the prophecy was not intended, in the first instance, to be publicly read before the people; moreover, it agrees with the assumption that he received the prophecy in a dream. But against the objection that Jeremiah never states,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1560

in any other place, in what bodily condition he was when he received his revelations from God, and that we cannot see why he should make such an intimation here - we may reply, with Nägelsbach, that this prophecy is the only one in the whole book which contains unmixed comfort, and that it is thus easy to explain why he could never forget that moment when, awaking after he had received it, he found he had experienced a sweet sleep. Still less weight is there in the objection of Graf, that one cannot comprehend why this remark stands here, because the description is evidently continued in what follows, while the dream must have ended here, when the prophet awoke. For this is against the assumption that the hand of the Lord immediately touched him again, and put him back into the ecstatic state. One might rather urge the consideration that the use of the word שׁנה, "sleep," does not certainly prove that the prophet was in the ecstatic state, from the fact that the lxx render תּר, in Gen 2:21 and Gen 15:2, by ἔκστασις. But wherever divine revelations were made in dreams, these of course presuppose sleep; so that the ecstatic state might also be properly called "sleep." Jeremiah adds, "And I looked," to signify that he had been thoroughly awakened, and, in complete self-consciousness, perceived that his sleep had been pleasant.

Verses 27-28

Jer 31:27-28The renovation of Israel and Judah. - Jer 31:27."Behold, days are coming, saith Jahveh, when I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with seed of men and seed of beasts. Jer 31:28.And it shall be that, just as I have watched over them to pluck up and to break down, to pull down and to destroy and to hurt, so shall I watch over them to build and to plant, saith Jahveh. Jer 31:29.In those days they shall no more say, 'Fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the teeth of the children become blunt;' Jer 31:30.But each man shall die for his own iniquity: every man who eats the sour grapes, his own teeth shall become blunted."
After announcement has been made, in what preceded, that both portions of the covenant people will be led back into their own land and re-established there, both are now combined, since they are again, at the restoration, to be united under one king, the sprout of David (cf. Jer 3:15, Jer 3:18), and to both there is promised

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1561

great blessing, both temporal and spiritual. The house of Israel and the house of Judah, as separate nations, are represented as a fruitful field, which God will sow with men and cattle. בּהמּה, "cattle," the tame domestic animals, contribute to the prosperity of a nation. That this seed will mightily increase, is evident from the fact that God sows it, and (as is further stated in Jer 31:28) will watch over it as it grows. Whereas, hitherto, He has watched for the purpose of destroying and annihilating the people, because of their apostasy, He will in time to come watch for the purpose of planting and building them up. The prophet has hitherto been engaged in fulfilling, against the faithless people, the first part of the commission given him by the Lord when he was called to his office (Jer 1:10); hereafter, he will be engaged in building up. As certainly as the first has taken place - and of this the people have had practical experience - so certainly shall the other now take place.

Verses 29-30

The proverb, which Ezekiel also (Eze 18:2.) mentions and contends against, cannot mean, "The fathers have begun to eat sour grapes, but not till the teeth of their sons have become blunted by them" (Nägelsbach); the change of tense is against this, for, by the perfect אכלוּ and the imperfect תּקהינה, the blunting of the children's teeth is set down as a result of the fathers' eating. The proverb means, "Children atone for the misdeeds of their fathers," or "The sins of the fathers are visited on their innocent children." On this point, cf. the explanations given in Eze 18:2. "Then shall they no more say" is rightly explained by Hitzig to mean, "They shall have no more occasion to say." But the meaning of the words is not yet made plain by this; in particular, the question how we must understand Jer 31:30 is not settled. Graf, referring to Jer 23:7-8, supplies יאמרוּ after כּי־אם, and thus obtains the meaning, Then will they no more accuse God of unrighteousness, as in that wicked proverb, but they will perceive that every one has to suffer for his own guilt. Hitzig and Nägelsbach have declared against this insertion - the former with the remark that, in Jer 23:7-8, because both members of the sentence begin with protestations, the whole is clear, while here it is not so - the latter resting on the fact that the dropping of the proverb from current use certainly

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1562

implies a correct knowledge of the righteousness of God, but one which is very elementary and merely negative; while, on the other hand, the whole connection of the passage now before us shows that it is intended to describe a period when the theocratic life is in a most flourishing condition. Then expositors take Jer 31:30 as the utterance of the prophet, and as embodying the notion that the average level of morality shall be so high at this future period, that only some sins will continue to be committed, and these as isolated exceptions to the rule. Taken all in all, Israel will be a holy people, in which the general spirit pervading them will repress the evil in some individuals, that would otherwise manifest itself. But we cannot imagine how these ideas can be supposed to be contained in the words, "Every man shall die for his own sins," etc. Jer 31:30 unquestionably contains the opposite of Jer 31:29. The proverb mentioned in Jer 31:29 involves the complaint against God, that in punishing sin He deals unjustly. According to this view, Jer 31:30 must contain the declaration that, in the future, the righteousness of God is to be revealed in the punishment of sins. As we have already remarked on Eze 18:3., the verse in question rather means, that after the re-establishment of Israel, the Lord will make known to His people His grace in so glorious a manner that the favoured ones will fully perceive the righteousness of His judgments. The experience of the unmerited love and compassion of the Lord softens the heart so much, that the favoured one no longer doubts the righteousness of the divine punishment. Such knowledge of true blessedness cannot be called elementary; rather, it implies a deep experience of divine grace and a great advance in the life of faith. Nor does the verse contain a judgment expressed by the prophet in opposition to that of his contemporaries, but it simply declares that the opinion contained in that current proverb shall no longer be accepted then, but the favoured people will recognise in the death of the sinner the punishment due to them for their own sin. Viewed in this manner, these verses prepare the way for the following announcement concerning the nature of the new covenant.

Verses 31-40

Jer 31:31-40The new covenant. - Jer 31:31. "Behold, days are coming, saith Jahveh, when I will make with the house of

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1563

Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant; Jer 31:32. Not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I laid hold of their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which covenant of mine they broke, though I had married them to myself, saith Jahveh; Jer 31:33. But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith Jahveh: I will put my law within them, and on their heart will I write it; and I will become to them a God, and they shall be to me a people. Jer 31:34. And they shall no more teach every man his neighbour and every man his brother, saying, Know ye Jahveh, for all of them shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, saith Jahveh; for I will pardon their iniquity, and their sins will I remember no more. Jer 31:35. Thus saith Jahveh, [who] gives the sun for light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and stars for light by night, who rouses the sea so that its waves roar, Jahveh of hosts is His name: Jer 31:36. If these ordinances move away from before me, saith Jahveh, then also will the seed of Israel cease to be a people before me for ever. Jer 31:37. Thus saith Jahveh: If the heavens above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth below can be searched out, then will I also reject all the seed of Israel because of all that they have done, saith Jahveh. Jer 31:38. Behold, days come, saith Jahveh, when the city shall be built for Jahveh, from the tower of Hananeel unto the gate of the corner, Jer 31:39. And the measuring-line shall once more go out straight over the hill of Gareb, and turn round towards Goah. Jer 31:40. And all the valley of the corpses and of the ashes, and all the fields unto the valley of Kidron, unto the corner of the gate of the horses towards the east, [shall be] holiness to Jahveh; it shall not be plucked up nor pulled down again for ever.
The re-establishment of Israel reaches its completion in the making of a new covenant, according to which the law of God is written in the hearts of the people; thereby Israel becomes in truth the people of the Lord, and the knowledge of God founded on the experience of the forgiveness of sins is such that there is no further need of any external means like mutual teaching about God (Jer 31:31-34). This covenant is to endure for ever, like the unchangeable ordinances of nature

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1564

(Jer 31:35-37); and in consequence of this, Jerusalem shall be guilt as the holy city of God, which shall never be destroyed again (Jer 31:38-40).

Verses 31-32

Jer 31:31-32 כּרת בּרית does not mean "to make an appointment," but "to conclude a covenant," to establish a relation of mutual duties and obligations. Every covenant which God concludes with men consists, on the side of God, in assurance of His favours and actual bestowal of them; these bind men to the keeping of the commands laid on them. The covenant which the Lord will make with all Israel in the future is called "a new covenant," as compared with that made with the fathers at Sinai, when the people were led out of Egypt; this latter is thus implicitly called the "old covenant." The words, "on the day when I took them by the hand," etc., must not be restricted, on the one side, to the day of the Exodus from Egypt, nor, on the other, to the day when the covenant was solemnly made at Sinai; they rather refer to the whole time of the Exodus, which did not reach its termination till the entrance into Canaan, though it culminated in the solemn admission of Israel, at Sinai, as the people of Jahveh; see on Jer 7:22. (On the punctuation of החזיקי, cf. Ewald, §238, d, Olshaus. Gramm. §191,f.) אשׁר is not a conjunction, "quod, because," but a relative pronoun, and must be combined with את־בּריתי, "which my covenant," i.e., which covenant of mine. "They" stands emphatically in contrast with "though I" in the following circumstantial clause, which literally means, "but I have married them to myself," or, "I was their husband." As to בּעלתּי, see on Jer 3:14. Hengstenberg wrongly takes the words as a promise, "but I will marry them to myself;" this view, however, is incompatible with the perfect, and the position of the words as a contrast with "they broke."^[3]
The two closely connected expressions indicate why a new covenant was necessary; there is no formal statement, however, of the reason, which is merely given in a subordinate and appended clause. For the proper reason why a new covenant is made is not that the people have

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1565

broken the old one, but that, though Jahveh had united Israel to Himself, they have broken the covenant and thereby rendered it necessary to make a new one. God the Lord, in virtue of His unchangeable faithfulness, would not alter the relation He had Himself established in His love, but simply found it anew in a way which obviated the breaking of the covenant by Israel. For it was a defect connected with the covenant made with Israel at Sinai, that it could be broken on their part. This defect is not to exist in the new covenant which God will make in after times. The expression "after those (not these) days" is remarkable; ההם is not the same as האלּה, and yet the days meant can only be the "coming days;" accordingly, it is "those days" (as in Jer 31:29) that are to be expected. The expression "after these days" is inexact, and probably owes its origin to the idea contained in the phrase "in the end of the days" (בּאחרית, cf. Jer 23:20).

Verses 33-37

The character of the new covenant: "I (Jahveh) give (will put) my law within them, and write it upon their heart." בּקרבּם is the opposite of נתן לפניהם, which is constantly used of the Sinaitic law, cf. Jer 9:12; Deu 4:8; Deu 11:32; 1Ki 9:6; and the "writing on the heart" is opposed to writing on the tables of stone, Exo 31:18, cf. Jer 32:15., Jer 34:8, Deu 4:13; Deu 9:11; Deu 10:4, etc. The difference, therefore, between the old and the new covenants consists in this, that in the old the law was laid before the people that they might accept it and follow it, receiving it into their hearts, as the copy of what God not merely required of men, but offered and vouchsafed to them for their happiness; while in the new it is put within, implanted into the heart and soul by the Spirit of God, and becomes the animating life-principle, 2Co 3:3. The law of the Lord thus forms, in the old as well as in the new covenant, the kernel and essence of the relation instituted between the Lord and His people; and the difference between the two consists merely in this, that the will of God as expressed in the law under the old covenant was presented externally to the people, while under the new covenant it is to become an internal principle of life. Now, even in the old covenant, we not only find that Israel is urged to receive the law of the Lord his God into his heart, - to make the law presented to him from without the property of his

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1566

heart, as it were, - but even Moses, we also find, promises that God will circumcise the heart of the people, that they may love God the Lord with all their heart and all their soul (Deu 30:6). But this circumcision of heart and this love of God with the whole soul, which are repeatedly required in the law (Deu 6:5; Deu 10:12, Deu 10:16), are impossibilities, unless the law be received into the heart. It thus appears that the difference between the old and the new covenants must be reduced to this, that what was commanded and applied to the heart in the old is given in the new, and the new is but the completion of the old covenant. This is, indeed, the true relation between them, as is clearly shown by the fact, that the essential element of the new covenant, "I will be their God, and they shall be my people," was set forth as the object of the old; cf. Lev 26:12 with Exo 29:45. Nevertheless the difference is not merely one of degree, but one of kind. The demands of the law, "Keep the commandments of your God," "Be ye holy as the Lord your God is holy," cannot be fulfilled by sinful man. Even when he strives most earnestly to keep the commands of the law, he cannot satisfy its requirements. The law, with its rigid demands, can only humble the sinner, and make him beseech God to blot out his sin and create in him a clean heart (Psa 51:11.); it can only awaken him to the perception of sin, but cannot blot it out. It is God who must forgive this, and by forgiving it, write His will on the heart. The forgiveness of sin, accordingly, is mentioned, Jer 31:34, at the latter part of the promise, as the basis of the new covenant. But the forgiveness of sins is a work of grace which annuls the demand of the law against men. In the old covenant, the law with its requirements is the impelling force; in the new covenant, the grace shown in the forgiveness of sins is the aiding power by which man attains that common life with God which the law sets before him as the great problem of life. It is in this that the qualitative difference between the old and the new covenants consists. The object which both set before men for attainment is the same, but the means of attaining it are different in each. In the old covenant are found commandment and requirement; in the new, grace and giving. Certainly, even under the old covenant, God bestowed on the people of Israel grace and the

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1567

forgiveness of sins, and, by the institution of sacrifice, had opened up a way of access by which men might approach Him and rejoice in His gracious gifts; His Spirit, moreover, produced in the heart of the godly ones the feeling that their sins were forgiven, and that they were favoured of God. But even this institution and this working of the Holy Spirit on and in the heart, was no more than a shadow and prefiguration of what is actually offered and vouchsafed under the new covenant, Heb 10:1. The sacrifices of the old covenant are but prefigurations of the true atoning-offering of Christ, by which the sins of the whole world are atoned for and blotted out.
In Jer 31:34 are unfolded the results of God's putting His law in the heart. The knowledge of the Lord will then no longer be communicated by the outward teaching of every man to his fellow, but all, small and great, will be enlightened and taught by the Spirit of God (Isa 54:13) to know the Lord; cf. Joe 3:1., Isa 11:9. These words do not imply that, under the new covenant, "the office of the teacher of religion must cease" (Hitzig); and as little is "disparity in the imparting of the knowledge of God silently excluded" in Jer 31:33. The meaning simply is this, that the knowledge of God will then no longer be dependent on the communication and instruction of man. The knowledge of Jahveh, of which the prophet speaks, is not the theoretic knowledge which is imparted and acquired by means of religious instruction; it is rather knowledge of divine grace based upon the inward experience of the heart, which knowledge the Holy Spirit works in the heart by assuring the sinner that he has indeed been adopted as a son of God through the forgiveness of his sins. This knowledge, as being an inward experience of grace, does not exclude religious instruction, but rather tacitly implies that there is intimation given of God's desire to save and of His purpose of grace. The correct understanding of the words results from a right perception of the contrast involved in them, viz., that under the old covenant the knowledge of the Lord was connected with the mediation of priests and prophets. Just as, at Sinai, the sinful people could not endure that the Lord should address them directly, but retreated, terrified by the awful manifestation of the Lord on the mountain, and said entreatingly to Moses,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1568

"Speak thou with us and we will hear, but let not God speak with us, lest we die" (Exo 20:15); so, under the old covenant economy generally, access to the Lord was denied to individuals, and His grace was only obtained by the intervention of human mediators. This state of matters has been abolished under the new covenant, inasmuch as the favoured sinner is placed in immediate relation to God by the Holy Spirit. Heb 4:16; Eph 3:12.
In order to give good security that the promise of a new covenant would be fulfilled, the Lord, in Jer 31:35., points to the everlasting duration of the arrangements of nature, and declares that, if this order of nature were to cease, then Israel also would cease to be a people before Him; i.e., the continuance of Israel as the people of God shall be like the laws of nature. Thus the eternal duration of the new covenant is implicitly declared. Hengstenberg contests the common view of Jer 31:35 and Jer 31:36, according to which the reference is to the firm, unchangeable continuance of God's laws in nature, which everything must obey; and he is of opinion that, in Jer 31:35, it is merely the omnipotence of God that is spoken of, that this proves He is God and not man, and that there is thus formed a basis for the statement set forth in Jer 31:35, so full of comfort for the doubting covenant people; that God does not life, that He can never repent of His covenant and His promises. But the arguments adduced for this, and against the common view, are not decisive. The expression "stirring the sea, so that its waves roar," certainly serves in the original passage, Isa 51:15, from which Jeremiah has taken it, to bring the divine omnipotence into prominence; but it does not follow from this that here also it is merely the omnipotence of God that is pointed out. Although, in rousing the sea, "no definite rule that we can perceive is observed, no uninterrupted return," yet it is repeated according to the unchangeable ordinance of God, though not every day, like the rising and setting of the heavenly bodies. And in Jer 31:35, under the expression "these ordinances" are comprehended the rousing of the sea as well as the movements of the moon and stars; further, the departure, i.e., the cessation, of these natural phenomena is mentioned as impossible, to signify that Israel cannot cease to exist as a

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1569

people; hence the emphasis laid on the immutability of these ordinances of nature. Considered in itself, the putting of the sun for a light by day, and the appointment of the moon and stars for a light by night, are works of the almighty power of God, just as the sea is roused so that its waves roar; but, that these phenomena never cease, but always recur as long as the present world lasts, is a proof of the immutability of these works of the omnipotence of God, and it is this point alone which here receives consideration. "The ordinances of the moon and of the stars" mean the established arrangements as regards the phases of the moon, and the rising and setting of the different stars. "From being a nation before me" declares not merely the continuance of Israel as a nation, so that they shall not disappear from the earth, just as so many others perish in the course of ages, but also their continuance before Jahveh, i.e., as His chosen people; cf. Jer 30:20. - This positive promise regarding the continuance of Israel is confirmed by a second simile, in Jer 31:37, which declares the impossibility of rejection. The measurement of the heavens and the searching of the foundations, i.e., of the inmost depths, of the earth, is regarded as an impossibility. God will not reject the whole seed of Israel: here כּל is to be attentively considered. As Hengstenberg correctly remarks, the hypocrites are deprived of the comfort which they could draw from these promises. Since the posterity of Israel are not all rejected, the rejection of the dead members of the people, i.e., unbelievers, is not thereby excluded, but included. That the whole cannot perish "is no bolster for the sin of any single person." The prophet adds: "because of all that they have done," i.e., because of their sins, their apostasy from God, in order to keep believing ones from despair on account of the greatness of their sins. On this, Calvin makes the appropriate remark: Consulto propheta hic proponit scelera populi, ut sciamus superiorem fore Dei clementiam, nec congeriem tot malorum fore obstaculo, quominus Deus ignoscat. If we keep before our mind these points in the promise contained in this verse, we shall not, like Graf, find in Jer 31:37 merely a tame repetition of what has already been said, and be inclined to take the verse as a superfluous marginal gloss.^[4]

Verses 38-39

Then shall Jerusalem be built up as a holy city of God, and be no more destroyed. After ימים, the Masoretic text wants בּאים, which is supplied in the Qeri. Hengstenberg is of opinion that the expression was abbreviated here, inasmuch as it has already occurred before, several times, in its full form (Jer 31:27 and Jer 31:31); but Jeremiah does not usually abbreviate when he repeats an expression, and באים has perhaps been dropped merely through an error in transcription. "The city shall be built for Jahveh," so that it thenceforth belongs to Him, is consecrated to Him. The extent of the new city is described as being "from the tower of Hananeel to the gate of the corner." The tower of Hananeel, according to Neh 3:1 and Zec 4:10, was situated on the north-east corner of the city wall; the gate of the corner was at the north-west corner of the city, to the north or north-west of the present "Jaffa Gate;" see on 2Ki 14:13; 2Ch 26:9; cf. Zec 14:10. This account thus briefly describes the whole north side. Jer 31:39. The measuring-line (קוה as found here, 1Ki 7:23 and Zec 1:16, is the original form, afterwards shortened into קו, the Qeri) further goes out נגדּו, "before itself," i.e., straight out over the hill Gareb. על does not mean "away towards, or on" (Hitzig); nor is the true reading עד, "as far as, even to," which is met with in several codices: the correct rendering is "away over," so that a part, at least, of the hill was included within the city bounds. "And turns towards Goah." These two places last named are unknown.

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1571

From the context of the passage only this much is clear, that both of them were situated on the west of the city; for the starting-point of the line spoken of is in the north-west, and the valley of Ben-hinnom joins in at the end of it, in the south, Jer 31:40. גּרב means "itching," for גּרב in Lev 21:20; Lev 22:22 means "the itch;" in Arabic also "the leprosy." From this, many expositors infer that the hill Gareb was the hill where lepers were obliged to dwell by themselves, outside the city. This supposition is probable; there is no truth, however, in the assumption of Schleussner, Krafft (Topogr. von Jerus. S. 158), Hitzig, and Hengstenberg, that the hill Bezetha, included within the city bounds by the third wall of Agrippa, is the one meant; for the line described in Jer 31:39 is not to be sought for on the north side of the city. With Graf, we look for the hill Gareb on the mount which lies westward from the valley of Ben-hinnom and at the end of the valley of Rephaim, towards the north (Jos 15:8; Jos 18:16), so that it is likely we must consider it to be identical with "the top of the mountain" mentioned in these passages. This mountain is the rocky ridge which bounds the valley of Ben-hinnom on the west, and stretches northwards, on the west side of the valley of Gihon and the Lower Pool (Birket es Sultân), to near the high road to Jaffa, where it turns off towards the west on the under (i.e., south) side of the Upper Pool (Birket el Mamilla); see on Jos 15:8. It is not, as Thenius supposes (Jerusalem before the Exile, an appendix to his commentary on the Books of Kings), the bare rocky hill situated on the north, and overhanging the Upper Pool; on this view, Goah could only be the steep descent from the plateau into the valley of Kidron, opposite this hill, towards the east. Regarding Goah, only this much can be said with certainty, that the supposition, made by Vitringa and Hengstenberg, of a connection between the name and Golgotha, is untenable; lexical considerations and facts are all against it. Golgotha was situated in the north-west: Goah must be sought for south-west from Jerusalem. The translation of the Chaldee, "cattle-pond," is a mere inference from גּעה, "to bellow." But, in spite of the uncertainty experienced in determining the positions of the hill Gareb and Goah, this much is evident from the verse before us,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1572

that the city, which is thus to be built anew, will extend to the west beyond the space occupied by old Jerusalem, and include within it districts or spots which lay outside old (i.e., pre-and post-exile) Jerusalem, and which had been divided off from the city, as unclean places.

Verse 40

In Jer 31:40, without any change of construction, the southern border is described. "The whole valley of the corpses and of the ashes...shall be holy to Jahveh," i.e., be included within the space occupied by the new city. By "the valley of the corpses and of the ashes" expositors generally and rightly understand the valley of Ben-hinnom (פּגרים are the carcases of animals that have been killed, and of men who have been slain through some judgment of God and been left unburied). Jeremiah applies this name to the valley, because, in consequence of the pollution by Josiah of the place where the abominations had been offered to Moloch (2Ki 23:10), it had become a sort of slaughtering-place or tan-yard for the city. According to Lev 6:3, דּשׁן means the ashes of the burnt-offerings consumed on the altar. According to Lev 4:12 and Lev 6:4, these were to be carried from the ash-heap near the altar, out of the city, to a clean place; but they might also be considered as the gross deposit of the sacrifices, and thus as unclean. Hence also it came to pass that all the sweepings of the temple were probably brought to this place where the ashes were, which thus became still more unclean. Instead of השּׁרמות, the Qeri requires השּׁדמות , and, in fact, the former word may not be very different from שׁדמות קדרון, 2Ki 23:4, whither Josiah caused all the instruments used in idolatrous worship to be brought and burned. But it is improbable that שׁרמות is a mere error in transcription for שׁדמות. The former word is found nowhere else; not even does the verb שׁרם occur. The latter noun, which is quite well known, could not readily be written by mistake for the former; and even if such an error had been committed, it would not have gained admission into all the MSS, so that even the lxx should have that reading, and give the word as  ̓Ασαρημώθ, in Greek characters. We must, then, consider שׁרמות as the correct reading, and derive the word from Arab. srm, or s]rm,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1573

or s[rm, "to cut off, cut to pieces," in the sense of "ravines, hollows" (Arab. s]arm), or loca abscissa, places cut off or shut out from the holy city. "Unto the brook of Kidron," into which the valley of Ben-hinnom opens towards the east, "unto the corner of the horse-gate towards the east." The horse-gate stood on the site of the modern "Dung-gate" (Ba=b el Mogha=riebh), in the wall which ran along from the south-east end of Zion to the western border of Ophel (see on Neh 3:28), so that, in this verse before us, it is the south and south-eastern boundaries of the city that are given; and only the length of the eastern side, which enclosed the temple area, on to the north-eastern corner, has been left without mention, because the valley of the Kidron here formed a strong boundary.
The extent of the new city, as here given, does not much surpass that of old Jerusalem. Only in the west and south are tracts to be included within the city, and such tracts, too, as had formerly been excluded from the old city, as unclean places. Jeremiah accordingly announces, not merely that there will be a considerable increase in the size of Jerusalem, but that the whole city shall be holy to the Lord, the unclean places in its vicinity shall disappear, and be transformed into hallowed places of the new city. As being sacred to the Lord, the city shall no more be destroyed.
From this description of Jerusalem which is to be built anew, so that the whole city, including the unclean places now outside of it, shall be holy, or a sanctuary of the Lord, it is very evident that this prophecy does not refer to the rebuilding of Jerusalem after the exile, but, under the figure of Jerusalem, as the centre of the kingdom of God under the Old Testament, announces the erection of a more spiritual kingdom of God in the Messianic age. The earthly Jerusalem was a holy city only in so far as the sanctuary of the Lord, the temple, had been built in it. Jeremiah makes no mention of the rebuilding of the temple, although he had prophesied the destruction, not only of the city, but also of the temple. But he represents the new city as being, in its whole extent, the sanctuary of the Lord, which the temple only had been, in

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1574

ancient Jerusalem. Cf. as a substantial parallel, Zec 14:10-11. - The erection of Jerusalem into a city, within whose walls there shall be nothing unholy, implies the vanquishment of sin, from which all impurity proceeds; it is also the ripe fruit of the forgiveness of sins, in which the new covenant, which the Lord will make with His people in the days to come, consists and culminates. This prophecy, then, reaches on to the time when the kingdom of God shall have been perfected: it contains, under an old Testament dress, the outlines of the image of the heavenly Jerusalem, which the seer perceives at Patmos in its full glory. This image of the new Jerusalem thus forms a very suitable conclusion to this prophecy regarding the restoration of Israel, which, although it begins with the deliverance of the covenant people from their exile, is yet thoroughly Messianic. Though clothed in an Old Testament dress, it does not implicitly declare that Israel shall be brought back to their native land during the period extending from the time of Cyrus to that of Christ; but, taking this interval as its stand-point, it combines in one view both the deliverance from the exile and the redemption by the Messiah, and not merely announces the formation of the new covenant in its beginnings, when the Christian Church was founded, but at the same time points to the completion of the kingdom of God under the new covenant, in order to show the whole extent of the salvation which the Lord will prepare for His people who return to Him. If these last verses have not made the impression on Graf's mind, that they could well have formed the original conclusion to the prophecy which precedes, the reason lies simply in the theological inability of their expositor to get to the bottom of the sacred writings. The Purchase of a Field as a Symbol of the Restoration of Judah after the Exile
This chapter, after an introduction (Jer 32:1-5) which accurately sets forth the time and circumstances of the following event, contains, first of all (Jer 32:6-15), the account of the purchase of a hereditary field at Anathoth, which Jeremiah, at the divine command, executes in full legal form, together with a statement of the meaning of this purchase; then

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1575

(Jer 32:16-25) a prayer of the prophet for an explanation as to how the purchase of the field could be reconciled with the delivering up of the people and the city of Jerusalem to the Chaldeans; together with (Jer 32:26-35) the Lord's reply, that He shall certainly give up Jerusalem to the Chaldeans, because Israel and Judah, by their sins and their idolatries, have roused His wrath; but (Jer 32:36-44) that He shall also gather again His people out of all the lands whither they have been scattered, and make an everlasting covenant with them, so that they shall dwell safely and happily in the land in true fear of God.

Chap. 32

Verses 1-5

Jer 32:1-5The time and the circumstances of the following message from God. - The message came to Jeremiah in the tenth year of Zedekiah, i.e., in the eighteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar (cf. Jer 25:1 and Jer 52:12), when the army of the king of Babylon was besieging Jerusalem, and Jeremiah was kept in confinement in the fore-court of the royal palace. These historical data are inserted (Jer 32:2-5) in the form of circumstantial clauses: 'ואז חיל וגו, "for at that time the army of the king of Babylon was besieging Jerusalem." The siege had begun in the ninth year of Zedekiah (Jer 39:1; Jer 52:4), and was afterwards raised for a short time, in consequence of the approach of an auxiliary corps of Egyptians; but, as soon as these had been defeated, it was resumed (Jer 37:5, Jer 37:11). Jeremiah was then kept confined in the court of the prison of the royal palace (cf. Neh 3:25), "where Zedekiah, king of Judah, had imprisoned him, saying: Why dost thou prophesy, 'Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will give this city into the hand of the king of Babylon, so that he shall take it; Jer 32:4. And Zedekiah, the king of Judah, shall not escape out of the hand of the Chaldeans, but shall assuredly be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon, and his mouth shall speak with his mouth, and his eyes shall behold his eyes; Jer 32:5. And he shall lead Zedekiah to Babylon, and there shall he be until I visit him, saith the Lord. Though ye fight with the Chaldeans, ye shall not succeed?'" - We have already found an utterance of like import in Jer 21:1-14, but that is not here referred to; for it was fulfilled at the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem, and did not bring on Jeremiah the consequences mentioned here. From Jer 37

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1576

we learn that Jeremiah, during the siege of Jerusalem, on till the time when it was raised through the approach of the Egyptian army, had not been imprisoned, but went freely in and out among the people (Jer 37:4.). Not till during the temporary raising of the siege, when he wanted to go out of the city into the land of Benjamin, was he seized and thrown into a dungeon, on the pretence that he intended to go over to the Chaldeans. There he remained many days, till King Zedekiah ordered him to be brought, and questioned him privately as to the issue of the conflict; when Jeremiah replied, "Thou shalt be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon." On this occasion Jeremiah complained to the king of his imprisonment, and requested that he might not be sent back into the dungeon, where he must soon perish; the king then ordered him (Jer 37:11-21) to be taken into the court of the prison-house (חצר , Jer 37:21), where he remained in confinement till the city was taken (Jer 38:13, Jer 38:28; Jer 39:14). The statement in our verses as to the cause of this imprisonment does not contradict, but agrees with the notice in Jer 37, as soon as we perceive that this account contains merely a brief passing notice of the matter. The same holds true of the utterance of the prophet in Jer 32:3-5. Jeremiah, even at the beginning of the siege (Jer 21:3.), had sent a message of similar import to the king, and repeated the same afterwards: Jer 34:3-5; Jer 37:17; Jer 38:17-23. The words of our verses are taken from these repeated utterances; Jer 32:4 agrees almost verbatim with Jer 34:3; and the words, "there shall he remain עד־פּקדי אתו, till I regard him with favour," are based upon the clearer utterance as to the end of Zedekiah, Jer 34:4-5. - The circumstances under which Jeremiah received the following commission from the Lord are thus exactly stated, in order to show how little prospect the present of the kingdom of Judah offered for the future, which was portrayed by the purchase of the field. Not only must the kingdom of Judah inevitably succumb to the power of the Chaldeans, and its population go into exile, but even Jeremiah is imprisoned, in so hopeless a condition, that he is no longer sure of his life for a single day.

Verses 6-7

Jer 32:6-7The purchase of the field. - In Jer 32:6, the introduction, which has been interrupted by long parentheses, is

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1577

resumed with the words, "And Jeremiah said," etc. The word of the Lord follows, Jer 32:7. The Lord said to him: "Behold, Hanameël, the son of Shallum, thine uncle, cometh to thee, saying, 'Buy thee my field at Anathoth, for thou hast the redemption-right to purchase it.' " According to a mode of construction common elsewhere, דּדך might be taken as in apposition to חנמאל: "Hanameël, son of Shallum, thine uncle." But Jer 32:8, Jer 32:9, in which Jeremiah calls Hanameël בּן־דּדי, son of my uncle, show that דּדך is in apposition to שׁלּם: "son of Shallum, [who is] thine uncle." The right of redemption consisted in this, that if any one was forced through circumstances to sell his landed property, the nearest blood-relation had the right, or rather was obliged, to preserve the possession for the family, either through pre-emption, or redemption from the stranger who had bought it (Lev 25:25). For the land which God had given to the tribes and families of Israel for a hereditary possession could not be sold, so as to pass into the hands of strangers; and for this reason, in the year of jubilee, what had bee sold since the previous jubilee reverted, without payment of any kind, to the original possessor or his heirs. (Cf. Lev 25:23-28, and Keil's Bibl. Archäol. ii. §141, p. 208ff.)

Verses 8-9

What had been announced to the prophet by God took place. Hanameël came to him, and offered him his field for sale. From this Jeremiah perceived that the proposed sale was the word of the Lord, i.e., that the matter was appointed by the Lord. Jer 32:9. Jeremiah accordingly bought the field, and weighed out to Hanameël "seven shekels and ten the silver" (הכּסף is definite, as being the amount of money asked as price of purchase). But the form of expression is remarkable: "seven shekels and ten" instead of "seventeen" (שׁבעה ועשׂרת שׁקלי הכּסף). The Chaldee consequently has "seven manehs and ten shekels of silver;" and J. D. Michaelis supposes that the seven shekels which are first named, and are separated from the ten, were shekels of gold: "seven shekels of gold, and seven shekels of silver." But both assumptions are gratuitous, and perhaps only inferences, not merely from the unusual separation of the numerals, but likewise from the fact that seventeen silver shekels (less than two pounds sterling) was too small a price for an arable field. The supposition

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1578

of Hitzig has more in its favour, that the mode of expression "seven shekels and ten (shekels) of silver" was a law form. Some have sought to explain the smallness of the price on the ground that the seller was compelled to part with his property through poverty, and that the land had become depreciated in consequence of the war. Both may be true; but, as Nägelsbach has already remarked, neither explains the smallness of the price. For instances have very properly been adduced from Roman history (Livy, xxvi. 11, and Florus, ii. 6) which show that occupation of a country by an enemy did not lessen the value of ground-property. It is rather to be taken into consideration, that in the first place we do not know the real value of arable land among the Hebrews; and secondly, the sale of portions of land was, correctly speaking, only the sale of the harvests up till the year of jubilee, for then the property returned to the former possessor of his heirs. In the case of a sale, then, the nearer the jubilee-year, the smaller must be the price of purchase in the alienation of the land.

Verses 10-15

The purchase was concluded in full legal form. "I wrote it (the necessary terms) in the letter (the usual letter of purchase), and sealed it, and took witnesses, and weighed out the money on the balance" (it was then and still is the custom in the East to weigh money). חתם means here, not to append a seal instead of subscribing the name, or for attestation (cf. 1Ki 21:8; Neh 10:1; 2), but to seal up, make sure by sealing (Isa 29:11, etc.). For, from Jer 32:11, Jer 32:12, we perceive that two copies of the bill of purchase were prepared, one sealed up, and the other open; so that, in case the open one were lost, or were accidentally or designedly injured or defaced, a perfect original might still exist in the sealed-up copy. Then "Jeremiah took the bill of purchase, the sealed one," - the specification and the conditions - "and the open one." The words המּצוה והחקּים are in apposition with 'את־ספר וגו. The Vulgate renders stipulationes et rata; Jerome, stipulatione rata, which he explains by stipulationibus et sponsionibus corroborata. מצוה, usually "a command, order," is probably employed here in the general sense of "specification," namely, the object and the price of purchase; חקּים, "statutes," the conditions and stipulations of sale. The apposition has the meaning, "containing the agreement

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1579

and the conditions." Both copies of this bill, the prophet-before the eyes of Hanameël, his cousin (דּדי, either in the general sense of a near relation, since the relationship has been stated exactly enough already, or בּן־ has been inadvertently omitted), and before the eyes of, i.e., in the presence of "the witnesses, who wrote in the letter of purchase," i.e., had subscribed it as witnesses in attestation of the matter, and in the eyes of all the Jews who were sitting in the court of the prison, and in whose presence the transaction had been concluded - delivered up to his attendant Baruch, son of Nerijah, the son of Mahsejah, with the words, Jer 32:14 : "Thus saith Jahveh of hosts, the God of Israel: Take these letters, this sealed-up letter of purchase and this open letter, and put them into an earthen vessel, that they may remain a long time there. Jer 32:15. For thus saith Jahveh of hosts, the God of Israel: Houses, and fields, and vineyards shall still be bought in this land." - The second utterance of the Lord (Jer 32:15) declares the reason why the letters were to be preserved in an earthen vessel, in order to protect them from damp, decay, and destruction, namely, because one could make use of them afterwards, when sale of property would still be taking place. There is also implied the intimation, that the present desolation of the land and the transportation of its inhabitants will only last during their time; and then the population of Judah will return, and enter again on the possession of their land. The purchase of the field on the part of Jeremiah had this meaning; and for the sake of this meaning it was announced to him by God, and completed before witnesses, in the presence of the Jews who happened to be in the court of the prison.

Verses 16-18

Jer 32:16-18The prayer of Jeremiah. - Although Jeremiah has declared, in the words of the Lord, Jer 32:14., the meaning of the purchase of the field to the witnesses who were present at the transaction, yet the intimation that houses, fields, and vineyards would once more be bought, seemed so improbable, in view of the impending capture and destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, that he betakes himself to the Lord in prayer, asking for further disclosures regarding the future of the people and the land, less for his own sake than for that of the people, who could with difficulty rise to such confidence of faith. The

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1580

prayer runs thus, Jer 32:17 : "Ah, Lord Jahveh! behold, Thou hast made the heaven and the earth by Thy great power and Thine outstretched arm; to Thee nothing is impossible. Jer 32:18. Thou showest mercy unto thousands, and repayest the iniquity of fathers into the bosom of their children after them, Thou great and mighty God, whose name is Jahveh of hosts. Jer 32:19. Great in counsel and mighty in deed, whose eyes are open to all the ways of the children of men, to give unto every one according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his works: Jer 32:20. Thou who didst signs and wonders in the land of Egypt until this day, both in Israel and among [other] men, and madest for Thyself a name, as it is this day; Jer 32:21. And didst lead Thy people Israel out of the land of Egypt with signs and wonders, and with strong hand and outstretched arm, and with great terror, Jer 32:22. And didst give them this land, which Thou hast sworn to their fathers to give them, a land flowing with milk and honey; Jer 32:23. And they came and took possession of it, but they hearkened not to Thy voice and walked not in Thy law: all that Thou commandedst them to do they did not, therefore didst Thou cause all this evil to come against them. Jer 32:24. Behold, the besiegers' mounds are come to the city, to take it, and the city will be given into the hands of the Chaldeans, who fight against it, because of the sword, hunger, and pestilence; and what Thou didst speak is come to pass, and, behold, Thou seest it. Jer 32:25. Yet Thou hast said to me, O Lord Jahveh, 'Buy thee the field for money, and take witnesses,' while the city is being delivered into the hands of the Chaldeans."
This prayer contains a laudation of the omnipotence of the Lord and the justice of His dealing among all men (Jer 32:17-19), and especially in the guidance of the people Israel (Jer 32:20-23), with the view of connecting with it the question, how the divine command to buy the field is to be reconciled with the decreed deliverance of the city into the power of the Chaldeans (Jer 32:24, Jer 32:25). Jer 32:17. God proclaims His omnipotence in the creation of the heaven and the earth, cf. Jer 27:5. From this it is plain that nothing is too wonderful for God, i.e., is impossible for Him, Gen 18:14. As Creator and Ruler of the world, God exercises grace and justice. The words of

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1581

Jer 32:18 are a reminiscence and free imitation of the passages Exo 20:5. and Jer 34:7, where the Lord so depicts His dealings in the guidance of men. To "recompense iniquity into the bosom" (see Isa 65:6, cf. Psa 79:12), i.e., to pour into the bosom of the garment the reward for iniquity, so that it may be carried away and borne; cf. Rth 3:15; Pro 17:23. "The great and mighty God," as in Deu 10:17. On "Jahveh of hosts is His name," cf. Jer 10:16; Jer 31:35. שׁמו is to be explained thus: "O Thou great God, whose name is Jahveh of hosts."

Verse 19

God shows His greatness and might in the wisdom with which He regards the doings of men, and in the power with which He executes His decrees, so as to recompense to every one according to his deeds. On 19a cf. Isa 28:29; Psa 66:5. "To give to every one," etc., is repeated, word for word, from Jer 17:10.

Verses 20-22

The Lord has further shown this omnipotence and righteousness in His guidance of Israel, in His leading them out of Egypt with wonders and signs; cf. Deu 6:22; Deu 34:11. "Until this day" cannot mean that the wonders continue in Egypt until this day - still less, that their glorious remembrance continues till this day (Calvin, Rosenmüller, etc.). Just as little can we connect the words with what follows, "until this day, in Egypt and among men," as Jerome supposed; although the idea et in Israel et in cunctis mortalibus quotidie tua signa complentur is in itself quite right. Logically considered, "until this day" belongs to the verb. 'ושׂמתּ וגו, and the construction is pregnant, as in Jer 11:7 : "Thou hast done wonders in Egypt, and hast still been doing them until this day in Israel and among other men." "Men," in contrast to "Israel," are mankind outside of Israel - other men, the heathen; on the expression, cf. Jdg 18:7; Isa 43:4; Psa 73:5. "As at this day:" cf. Jer 11:5; Jer 25:18. Through signs and wonders the Lord wrought, leading Israel out of Egypt, and into the land of Canaan, which had been promised to their fathers. Jer 32:21 is almost exactly the same as Deu 26:8, cf. Deu 4:34. מורא refers to the terror spread among the neighbouring nations, Exo 15:14., by the wonders, especially the slaying of the first-born among the Egyptians, Exo 12:30., and the miracle at the Red Sea. On "a land flowing with milk and honey," cf. Exo 3:8.

Verses 23-25

These wonders of grace which the Lord wrought for His people, Israel requited with base unthankfulness. When they had got into possession of the land, they did not listen to the voice of their God, and did the reverse of what He had commanded. (The Kethib בתרותך might be read as a plural. But since תּורה in the plural is always written elsewhere תּורת (cf. Gen 26:5; Exo 16:28; Exo 18:20; Lev 26:46, etc.), and the omission of the י in plural suffixes is unusual (cf. Jer 38:22), the word rather seems to have been incorrectly written for בּתורתך (cf. Jer 26:4; Jer 44:10, Jer 44:23), i.e., the w seems to have been misplaced. Therefore the Lord brought on them this great calamity, the Chaldean invasion (תּקרא for תּקרה); cf. Jer 13:22, Deu 31:29. With this thought, the prophet makes transition to the questions addressed to the Lord, into which the prayer glides. In Jer 32:24, the great calamity is more fully described. The ramparts of the besieging enemy have come to the city (בּוא with acc.), to take it, and the city is given (נתּנה, prophetic perfect) into the hands of the Chaldeans. "Because of the sword;" i.e., the sword, famine, and pestilence (cf. Jer 14:16; Jer 25:16, etc.) bring them into the power of the enemy. "What Thou spakest," i.e., didst threaten through the prophets, "is come to pass; and, behold, Thou seest it (viz., what has happened), and yet (ואתּה adversative) Thou sayest to me, 'Buy the field,' " etc. The last clause, 'והעיר נ, is a "circumstantial" one, and is not a part of God's address, but is added by Jeremiah in order to give greater prominence to the contrast between the actual state of matters and the divine command regarding the purchase. The prayer concludes with this, which is for men an inexplicable riddle, not (as Nägelsbach thinks) for the purpose of leaving to the reader the solution of the problem, after all aids have been offered him - for Jeremiah would not need to direct his question to God for that purpose - but in order to ask from God an explanation regarding the future. This explanation immediately follows in the word of the Lord, which, from Jer 32:26 onwards, is addressed to the prophet.

Verses 26-37

Jer 32:26-37 The answer of the Lord. - Behold, I am Jahveh, the God of all flesh; is there anything impossible to me? Jer 32:28.Therefore, thus saith Jahveh: Behold, I give this city into

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1583

the hand of the Chaldeans, and into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar, the king of Babylon, that he may take it. Jer 32:29.The Chaldeans that fight against this city shall come, and shall set fire to this city, and burn it and the houses on whose roofs you have burned incense to Baal and poured out libations to other gods, to provoke me. Jer 32:30.For the children of Israel and the children of Judah have done only what is evil in mine eyes from their youth; for the children of Israel have only provoked me with the work of their hands, saith Jahveh. Jer 32:31.For this city has been to me a burden upon mine anger and upon my wrath from the day that it was built till this day, that I might remove it from before my face;] Jer 32:32.Because of all the wickedness of the children of Israel and the children of Judah, which they have done, to provoke me-they, their kings, their princes, their priests, and their prophets, the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Jer 32:33.They turned to me the back and not the face; and though they were constantly being taught, they would not hear so as to receive instruction. Jer 32:34.And they placed their abominations in the house which is called by my name, in order to defile it; Jer 32:35.And built high places to Baal in the valley of Ben-hinnom, to devote their sons and their daughters of Moloch-which I did not command them, nor did it come into my mind that they would do such abomination-that they might lead Judah to sin. Jer 32:36.And now, therefore, thus saith Jahveh, the God of Israel, concerning this city, of which ye say, 'It shall be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon, through the sword, famine, and pestilence:' Jer 32:37.Behold, I shall gather them out of all lands whither I have driven them in my wrath, and in mine anger, and in great rage, and shall bring them back to this place, and make them dwell safely. Jer 32:38.And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. Jer 32:39.And I will give them one heart and one way, to fear me always, for good to them and to their children after them. Jer 32:40.And I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I shall not turn aside form doing them good; and I will put my fear in their heart, that they may not depart from me. Jer 32:41.And I shall rejoice over them, to do them good, and shall plant them in this land, in truth, with my whole heart and

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1584

my whole soul. Jer 32:42.For thus saith Jahveh: 'Just as I have brought all this great evil on this people, so shall I bring on them all the good of which I speak regarding them.' Jer 32:43.And fields shall be bought in this land, of which ye say, It is a desolation, without man or beast, and it is given into the hand of the Chaldeans. Jer 32:44.They shall buy fields for money, and write it in the letter, and seal it up, and take witnesses, in the land of Benjamin, and in the places round Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, and in the cities of the hill-country, and in the cities of the plain, and in the cities of the south; for I shall turn again their captivity, saith Jahveh."
The Lord replies to the three points touched on in the prayer of the prophet. First, in Jer 32:27, He emphatically confirms the acknowledgment that to Him, as Creator of heaven and earth, nothing is impossible (Jer 32:17), and at the same time points out Himself as the God of all flesh, i.e., the God on whom depend the life and death of all men. This description of God is copied from Num 16:22; Num 27:16, where Jahveh is called "the God of the spirits of all flesh." "All flesh" is the name given to humanity, as being frail and perishing. - Then God reaffirms that Jerusalem will be given into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar, and be burned by the Chaldeans (Jer 32:28.), because Israel and Judah have always roused His wrath by their idolatry and rebellion against His commands (Jer 32:30-35). The substance of these verses has been often given before. On והצּיתוּ cf. Jer 21:10; Jer 37:8; on אשׁר  cf. Jer 19:13 with Jer 7:9, Jer 7:18. The mention of the children of Israel in connection with the children of Judah is not to be understood as if the destruction of Jerusalem was partly owing to the former; but it is here made, to signify that Judah can expect no better fate than the Israelites, whose kingdom has been destroyed long before, and who have for a long time now been driven into exile. היוּ, "they were only doing," i.e., doing nothing else than what is displeasing to the Lord. In Jer 32:30 "the children of Israel" is a designation of the whole covenant people. The whole sentence has reference to Deu 31:29. "The work of their hands" is not the idols, but signifies the whole conduct and actions of the people. Jer 32:31. The difficult construction היתה־לּי...על־אפּי is most easily explained from the employment of היה על

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1585

with reference to the superincumbency of a duty or burden lying on one. "This city became to me a burden on my wrath," an object which lay upon my wrath, called it forth. No other explanation can be vindicated. The passages Jer 52:3 and 2Ki 24:3, 2Ki 24:20, are of a different character, and the meaning juxta, secundum for על, after 2Ki 6:14 (Hitzig), is quite unsuitable. The words, "from the day when it was built," are not to be referred to the earliest founding of Jerusalem, but to that time when the Israelites first built it; and even in reference to this, they are not to be pressed, but to be viewed as a rhetorically strong expression for, "from its earliest times." Even so early as David's time, opposition against Jahveh showed itself in the conspiracy of Absalom; and towards the end of Solomon's reign, idolatry had been introduced into Jerusalem, 1Ki 11:5. After the words "to remove it from before my face," there follows once more, in Jer 32:32, the reason of the rejection; cf. Jer 7:12; Jer 11:17, and for enumeration of the several classes of the population, Jer 2:26; Jer 17:25. The sins are once more specified, Jer 32:33-35; in Jer 32:33, as a stiff-necked departure from God, and in Jer 32:34. the mention of the greatest abomination of idolatry, the setting up of idols in the temple, and of the worship of Moloch. With 33a cf. Jer 2:27. The inf. abs. ולמּד stands with special emphasis instead of the finite tense: though they were taught from early morn, yet they were inattentive still. On this point cf. Jer 2:13, Jer 2:25; Jer 25:3-4. On לקחת מוּסר cf. Jer 17:23; Jer 7:28. Jer 32:34, Jer 32:35 are almost identical with Jer 7:30-31. לעשׂות וגו does not belong to the relative clause אשׁר לא וגו' (Nägelsbach), but is parallel to להעביר וגו', continuing the main clause: "that they should commit these abominations, and thereby cause Judah to sin," i.e., bring them into sin and guilt. החטי with א dropped; see Jer 19:15. - After setting forth the sin for which Judah had drawn on herself the judgment through the Chaldeans, the Lord proclaims, Jer 32:36., the deliverance of the people from exile, and their restoration; thus He answers the question which had been put to Him, Jer 32:25. ועתּה, "but now," marks what follows as the antithesis to what precedes. "Therefore, thus saith Jahveh," in Jer 32:36, corresponds to the same words in Jer 32:28. Because nothing is impossible to the Lord, He shall, as God of Israel, gather again

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1586

those who have been scattered through every land, and bring them back into their own country. "To this city," - namely, of which ye speak. The suffix of מקבּצם refers to העיר, whose inhabitants are meant. Jerusalem, as the capital, represents the whole kingdom. "The dispersed" are thus, in general, the inhabitants of Judah. Hence, too, from the nature of the case, "this place" is the kingdom of Judah. On this point cf. Eze 36:11, Eze 36:33; Hos 11:11.

Verses 38-44

Jer 32:38, Jer 32:39 are to be understood like Jer 31:33. They must in very deed become the people of the Lord, for God gives them one heart and one way of life, to fear Him always, i.e., through His Spirit He renews and sanctifies them (Jer 31:33; Jer 24:7; Jer 11:19). "One heart and one way" that they may all with one mind and in one way fear me, no longer wander through many wicked ways (Jer 26:3; Isa 53:6). יראה is an infinitive, as often in Deut., e.g., Jer 4:10, from which the whole sentence has been derived, and Jer 6:24, to which the expression לטוב להם points. The everlasting covenant which the Lord wishes to conclude with them, i.e., the covenant-relationship which He desires to grant them, is, in fact, the new covenant, Jer 31:33. Here, however, only the eternal duration of it is made prominent, in order to comfort the pious in the midst of their present sufferings. Consequently, only the idea of the עולם is mainly set forth: "that I shall not turn away from them, to do them good - no more withdraw from them my gracious benefits;" but the uninterrupted bestowal of these implies also faithfulness to the Lord on the part of the people. The Lord desires to establish His redeemed people in this condition by putting His fear in their heart, namely, through His Spirit; see Jer 31:33-34. ושׂשׂתּי, "And I shall rejoice over them, by doing them good," as was formerly the case (Deu 28:63), and is again to be, in time to come. בּאמת, in truth, properly, "in faithfulness." This expression is strengthened by the addition, "with my whole heart and my whole soul." - So much for the promise of restoration and renewal of the covenant people. This promise is confirmed, Jer 32:42-44, by the assurance that the accomplishment of deliverance shall follow as certainly as the decree of the calamity has done; the change is similar to that in Jer 31:38. Finally, Jer 32:43, Jer 32:44, there is the application made of this to the purchase of the

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1587

field which the prophet had been commanded to fulfil; and the signification of this purchase is thus far determined, that after the restoration of Judah to their own land, fields shall once more be bought in full legal form: with this, the discourse returns to its starting-point, and finishes. The article is used generically in השׂדה; hence, on the repetition of the thought, Jer 32:44, the plural שׂדות is employed instead. The enumeration of the several regions of the kingdom, as in Jer 17:26, is a rhetorical individualization for strengthening the thought. The land of Benjamin is here made prominent in relation to the field purchased by Jeremiah at Anathoth in the land of Benjamin. The final sentence 'כּי אשׁיב  also serves for further proof. The Hiphil in this expression does not mean the same as the usual אשׁוּב: "I turn the captivity," i.e., I change the adversity into prosperity. השׁיב expresses restitutio in statum incolumitatis seu integritatis more plainly than שׁוּב - not merely the change of misfortune or misery; but it properly means, to lead back or restore the captivity, i.e., to remove the condition of adversity by restoration of previous prosperity. The expression is analogous to קומם or בּנה חרבות, to build or raise ruins, Isa 44:26; Isa 58:12; Isa 61:4, and קומם שׁממות, to raise up desolate places, Isa 61:4, which does not mean to restore ruins or desolate places, but to build them up into inhabitable places (cf. Isa 61:4), to remove ruins or desolations by the building and restoration of cities.

Chap. 33

Verse 1

While Jeremiah was still in confinement in the court of the prison belonging to the palace (see Jer 32:2), the word of the Lord came to him the second time. This word of God is attached by שׁנית to the promise of Jer 32. It followed, too, not long, perhaps, after the other, which it further serves to confirm. - After the command to call on Him, that He might make known to him great and hidden things (Jer 33:2, Jer 33:3), the Lord announces that, although Jerusalem shall be destroyed by the Chaldeans, He shall yet restore it, bring back the captives of Judah and Israel, purify the city from its iniquities, and make it the glory and praise of all the people of the earth (Jer 33:4-9),

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1588

so that in it and in the whole land joy will again prevail (Jer 33:10-13). Then the Lord promises the restoration of the kingdom through the righteous sprout of David - of the priesthood, too, and sacrificial worship (Jer 33:14-18); He promises also the everlasting duration of these two ordinances of grace (Jer 33:19-22), because His covenant with the seed of Jacob and David shall be as enduring as the natural ordinance of day and night, and the laws of heaven and earth (Jer 33:23-26). - The promises thus fall into two parts. First, there is proclaimed the restoration of the people and kingdom to a new and glorious state of prosperity (Jer 33:4-13); then the re-establishment of the monarchy and the priesthood to a new and permanent condition (Jer 33:14-26). In the first part, the promise given in Jer 32:36-44 is further carried out; in the second, the future form of the kingdom is more plainly depicted.

Verses 2-3

Jer 33:2-3Introduction. - Jer 33:2. "Thus saith Jahveh who makes it, Jahveh who forms it in order to establish it, Jahveh is His name: Jer 33:3. Call on me and I will answer thee, and tell thee great and hidden things which thou knowest not." The reference of the suffixes in עשׂהּ, אותהּ, and הכינהּ is evident from the contents of the propositions: the Lord does what He says, and forms what He wants to make, in order to accomplish it, i.e., He completes what He has spoken and determined on. יצר, to frame, namely, in the mind, as if to think out, just as in Jer 18:11 : the expression is parallel with חשׁב; in this sense also we find Isa 46:11. הכין, to establish, realize what has been determined on, prepare, is also found in Isa 9:6; Isa 40:20, but more frequently in Jeremiah (Jer 10:12; Jer 51:12, Jer 51:15), and pretty often in the Old Testament generally. On the phrase "Jahveh is His name," cf. Jer 31:35. The idea contained in Jer 33:2 reminds us of similar expressions of Isaiah, as in Isa 22:11; Isa 37:26; Isa 46:11, etc.; but this similarity offers no foundation for the doubts of Movers and Hitzig regarding the genuineness of this verse. The same holds as regards Jer 33:3. The first proposition occurs frequently in the Psalms, e.g., Jer 4:4; Jer 28:1; Jer 30:9, also in Jer 7:27; Jer 11:14; but קתא with אל is unusual in Isaiah. The words בּצרות לא  are certainly an imitation of נצרות ולא ידעתּם, Isa 48:6; but they are modified, in the manner peculiar to Jeremiah, by the change of נצרות into בצרות.

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1589

The combination גּדלות וּבצרות noit is elsewhere used only of the strong cities of the Canaanites, Deu 1:28; Deu 9:1; Jos 14:12, cf. Num 13:28; here בּצרות is transferred to things which lie beyond the limits of human power to discover, and become known to men only through divine revelation. There is no good reason for Ewald's change of בצרות in accordance with Isa 48:6. - On the contents of these verses Hengstenberg remarks: "It may seem strange that, though in the opening part the prophet is promised a revelation of greater, unknown things, for which he is to call on God, yet the succeeding announcement contains scarcely anything remarkable or peculiar." Graf also adds the remark of Hitzig, that the command to pray, addressed to Jeremiah, cannot have the effect of keeping us from the conclusion that the verses are an addition by a later hand. Nägelsbach replies that the mode of expression presents nothing specially unlike Jeremiah, and that what is most calculated to give the impression of being unlike Jeremiah's, namely, this introduction in itself, and especially the peculiar turn of Jer 33:3, "Call unto me," etc., is occasioned by the prayer of the prophet, Jer 32:16-25. To this prayer the prophet had received an answer, Jer 32:36-44; but he is here admonished to approach the Lord more frequently with such a request. The God who has the power to execute as well as make decrees is quite prepared to give him an insight into His great thoughts regarding the future; and of this a proof is at once given. Thus, Jer 33:1-3 must be viewed as the connecting link between Jer 32; 33.
Yet these remarks are not sufficient to silence the objections set forth against the genuineness of Jer 33:2, Jer 33:3; for the specializing title of our chapter, in Jer 33:1, is opposed to the close connection which Nägelsbach maintains between Jer 32; 33. The fact that, in Jer 32, Jeremiah addresses the Lord in prayer for further revelation regarding the purchase of the field, as commanded, and that he receives the information he desired regarding it, gives no occasion for warning to the prophet, to betake himself more frequently to God for disclosures regarding His purposes of salvation. And Nägelsbach has quite evaded the objection that Jeremiah does not obey the injunction. Moreover, the succeeding revelation made in vv. 4-26 is not of the nature of a

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1590

"proof," for it does not contain a single great leading feature in God's purposes as regards the future. - Hengstenberg also points out the difficulty, "that the Scripture everywhere refuses to recognise a dead knowledge as true knowledge, and that the hope of restoration has an obstacle in the natural man, who strives to obscure and to extinguish it; that, consequently, the promise of restoration is always new, and the word of God always great and grand;" but what he adduces for the solution of the difficulty contained in the command, "Call on me, and I will show thee great and unknown things," is insufficient for his purpose. The objection which expositors have taken to these verses has arisen from an improper application of them; the words קרא אלי have been understood as referring to the request that God should give some revelation regarding the future, or His purposes of deliverance, and ענה as referring to the communication of His purposes for increasing our knowledge of them. But "to call on God" rather signifies to pray to God, i.e., to beseech Him for protection, or help, or deliverance in time of need, cf. Psa 3:5; Psa 28:1; Psa 30:9; Psa 55:17, etc.; and to "answer" is the reply of God made when He actually vouchsafes the aid sought for; cf. e.g., Psa 55:17, "I call on God, and Jahveh answers me (saves me);" Psa 4:2, Psa 4:4; Psa 18:7; Psa 27:7, etc. Consequently, also, "to make known" (הגּיד) is no mere communication of knowledge regarding great and unknown things, no mere letting them be known, but a making known by deeds. The words עשׂהּ and יוצר אותהּ, ascribed to the Lord, suggest and require that the words should be thus understood. With the incorrect reference of these words to knowing and making known there is connected the further error, that the command, "Call unto me," is directed to the person of the prophet, and gives an admonition for his behaviour towards God, for which the text affords on foundation whatever; for it does not run: "Thus saith Jahveh to me" (אלי), and the insertion of this אלי is unwarranted, and inconsistent with the use of כּי which introduces the announcement. Hitzig, Graf, and others have passed by this כּי without remark; and what Nägelsbach says about it is connected with his view, already refuted, as to the essential unity of Jer 32; 33. Lastly, Ewald has enclosed Jer 33:3 within parentheses, and considers that

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1591

the introductory formula of Jer 33:2 is resumed in Jer 33:4 : "Yea, thus saith Jahveh." This is a conclusion hastily formed by one who is in difficulty, for Jer 33:3 has not the nature of a parenthesis. If we allow the arbitrary addition "to me" after the words, "Thus saith the Lord," Jer 33:2, and if we take the words in their simplest sense - the invocation of the Lord as a call to God for help in need - then Jer 33:2, Jer 33:3 do not contain a mere prelude to the revelation which follows, but an exhortation to the people to betake themselves to the Lord their God in their calamity, when He will make known to them things unattainable by human discernment; for (כּי, Jer 33:4) He announces, in reference to the ruined houses of the city, that He will repair their injuries.

Verses 4-6

Jer 33:4-6Repair of the injuries and renewal of the prosperity of Jerusalem and Judah. - Jer 33:4. "For thus saith Jahveh, the God of Israel, concerning the houses of this city, and concerning the houses of the kings of Judah, which are broken down because of the besiegers' mounds and because of the sword, Jer 33:5. While they come to fight with the Chaldeans, and to fill them with the corpses of men, whom I have slain in my wrath and in my fury, and for all whose wickedness I have hidden my face from this city: Jer 33:6. Behold, I will apply a bandage to it and a remedy, and will heal them, and will reveal to them abundance of peace and truth. Jer 33:7. And I will turn again the captivity of Judah and the captivity of Israel, and will build them up as at the first. Jer 33:8. And I will purify them from all their iniquity by which they have sinned against me, and will pardon all their iniquities, by which they have sinned and have transgressed against me. Jer 33:9. And it (the city) shall become to me a name of joy, a praise, and an honour among all the people of the earth that shall hear all the good which I do them, and shall tremble and quake because of all the good and because of all the prosperity that I show to it. Jer 33:10. Thus saith Jahveh: Again shall there be heard in this place-of which ye say, 'It is desolate, without man and without beast,'-in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem, which are laid waste, without men, and without inhabitants, and without beasts, Jer 33:11. The voice of gladness and the voice of joy, the voice of the bridegroom

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1592

and the voice of the bride, the voice of those who say, 'Praise Jahveh of hosts, for Jahveh is good, for His mercy is for ever,' who bring thank-offerings into the house of Jahveh. For I will turn again the captivity of the land, as in the beginning, saith Jahveh. Jer 33:12. Thus saith Jahveh of hosts: In this place, which is laid waste, without man and beast, and in all its cities, there will yet be pasture-ground for shepherds making their flocks lie down in. Jer 33:13. In the cities of the hill-country, in the cities of the plain, and in the cities of the south, in the land of Benjamin, and in the environs of Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, the flock shall yet pass under the hand of one who counts them, saith Jahveh."
With Jer 33:4 begins the statement concerning the great and incomprehensible things which the Lord will make known to His people; it is introduced by כּי, which marks the ground or reason - so far as the mere statement of these things gives reason for the promise of them. The word of the Lord does not follow till Jer 33:6 and onwards. In Jer 33:4 and Jer 33:5 are mentioned those whom the word concerns - the houses of Jerusalem (Jer 33:4), and the people that defend the city (Jer 33:5). Corresponding to this order, there comes first the promise to the city (Jer 33:6), and then to the people. Along with the houses of the city are specially named also the houses of the kings of Judah; not, perhaps, as Hitzig thinks, because these, being built of stone, afforded a more suitable material for the declared object - for that these alone were built of stone is an unfounded supposition - but in order to show that no house or palace is spared to defend the city. "Which are broken down" refers to the houses, not only of the kings, but also of the city. They are broken, pulled down, according to Isa 22:10, in order to fortify the walls of the city against the attacks of the enemy, partly to strengthen them, partly to repair the damage caused by the battering-rams directed against them. This gives the following meaning to the expression אל־הסּללות ואל־החרב: in order to work against the mounds, i.e., the earthworks erected by the enemy, and against the sword. The sword is named as being the chief weapon, instead of all the instruments of war which the enemy employs for reducing the city; cf. Eze 26:9. It is against the laws of grammar to understand נתשׁים

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1593

as referring to the destruction of the enemy by the siege material; for, on such a supposition, אל־ would require to designate the efficient cause, i.e., to stand for מפּני (cf. Jer 4:26), but neither אל־ nor על can mean this. - The first half of Jer 33:5 is difficult, especially בּאים, which the lxx have omitted, and which Movers and Hitzig would expunge, with the absurd remark, that it has come here from Jer 31:38; this is an easy and frivolous method of setting aside difficulties. All other ancient translations have read בּאים, and have attempted to point out how its genuineness is ascertained on critical grounds.^[5]
To connect בּאים closely with what precedes is impossible; and to understand it as referring to the houses, quae dirutae adhibentur ad dimicandum cum Chaldaeis (C. B. Michaelis), is incompatible with the idea contained in בּוא. Still more inadmissible is the view of L. de Dieu, Venema, Schnurrer, Dahler, and Rosenmüller: venientibus ad oppugnandum cum Chaldaeis; according to this view, אּת־כּשׂדּים must be the nominative or subject to להלּחם את־הכּשׂדּים בּאים can only signify, "to contend with the Chaldeans" (against them); cf. Jer 32:5. According to this view, only the Jews can be the subject of בּאים. "They come to make war with the Chaldeans, and to fill them (the houses) with the dead bodies of men, whom I (the Lord) slay in my wrath." The subject is not named, since it is evident from the whole scope of the sentence what is meant. We take the verse as a predication regarding the issues of the conflict - but without a copula; or, as a statement added parenthetically, so that the participle may be rendered, "while they come," or, "get ready, to fight." בּוא, used of the approach of an enemy (cf. Dan 1:1), is here employed with regard to the advance of the Jews to battle

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1594

against the besiegers of the city. The second infinitival clause, "to fill them," represents the issue of the struggle as contemplated by the Jews, in order to express most strongly its utter fruitlessness; while the relative clauses, "whom I have slain," etc., bring out the reasons for the evil consequences. Substantially, the statement in Jer 33:5 is parallel to that in Jer 33:4, so that we might supply the preposition על (ועל): "and concerning those who come to fight," etc. Through the attachment of this second predication to the first by means of the participle, the expression has become obscured. In the last clause, אשׁר is to be connected with על־רעתם.
In view of the destruction of Jerusalem now beginning, the Lord promises, Jer 33:6, "I will apply to it (the city) a bandage (see Jer 30:17) and a remedy," i.e., a bandage which brings healing, "and heal them" (the inhabitants); for, although the suffix in רפאתים might be referred to the houses, yet the following clause shows that it points to the inhabitants. Hitzig takes גּלּיתי in the meaning of גּלל, "I roll to them like a stream," and appeals to Amo 5:24; Isa 48:18; Isa 66:12, where the fulness of prosperity is compared to a stream, and the waves of the sea; but this use of גּלה is as uncertain here as in Jer 11:20. We keep, then, to the well-established sense of revealing, making known (cf. Psa 98:2, where it is parallel with הודיע), without any reference to the figure of sealed treasure-chambers (Deu 28:12), but with the accessory notion of the unfolding of the prosperity before all nations (Jer 33:9), as in Psa 98:2. עתרת is here to be taken as a noun, "fulness, wealth," from עתר, an Aramaizing form for עשׁר, to be rich (Eze 35:13). שׁלום ואמת does not mean "prosperity and stability," but "peace and truth;" but this is not to be toned down to "true peace," i.e., real, enduring happiness (Nägelsbach). אמת is the truth of God, i.e., His faithfulness in His promises and covenants, as in Psa 85:11-12, where mercy and truth, righteousness and peace, are specified as the gracious benefits with which the Lord blesses His people.

Verse 7

The attainment of this prosperity consists in the change of the wretchedness and misery of Judah and Israel (the whole covenant people) into permanent happiness, and their being built up - i.e., the firm establishment of their civil prosperity through the secure possession and enjoyment

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1595

of the good things of the land - as in the beginning, i.e., the time previous to the rending of the state through the falling away of the people into idolatry; cf. Isa 1:26; 1Ki 13:6. For השׁיב את  see Jer 32:44.

Verse 8

This prosperity gains stability and permanence through the people's being cleansed from their sins by their being forgiven, which, according to Jer 31:34, will form the basis of the new covenant. Regarding the anomalous form לכול for לכל־ rof לכול mro, Hitzig supposes that in the scriptio continua a transcriber wished to keep the two datives לך לעונותיהם separate by inserting the ו. But the form כּוּלּם, Jer 31:34, is equally irregular, except that there the insertion of the ו may be explained in this, or in some similar way.

Verses 9-11

In consequence of the renovation of Israel externally and internally, Jerusalem will become to the Lord a name of delight, i.e., a name which affords joy, delight. שׁם here signifies, not fame, but a name. But the name, as always in Scripture, is the expression of the essential nature; the meaning therefore is, "she will develope into a city over which men will rejoice, whenever her name is mentioned." On the following words, "for praise and for glory," i.e., for a subject of praise, etc., cf. Jer 13:11. לכל־גּויי, "to all," or "among all nations." How far Jerusalem becomes such is shown by the succeeding clauses: "who shall hear...and tremble and quake because of the good," i.e., not from fear "because they are seized with terror through these proofs of the wonderful power of God in contrast with the helplessness of their idols, and through the feeling of their miserable and destitute condition as contrasted with the happiness and prosperity of the people of Israel" (Graf). Against this usual view of the words, it has already been remarked in the Berleburger Bible, that it does not agree with what precedes, viz., with the statement that Jerusalem shall become a name of joy to all nations. Moreover, פּחד and רגז, in the sense of fear and terror, are construed with מפּני or מן; here, they signify to shake and tremble for joy, like פּחד in Isa 60:5, cf. Hos 3:5, i.e., as it is expressed in the Berleburger Bible, "not with a slavish fear, but with the filial fear of penitents, which will also draw and drive them to the reconciled God in Christ, with holy fear and trembling." Calvin had previously recognised this Messianic

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1596

idea, and fitly elucidated the words thus: haec duo inter se conjuncta, nempe pavor et tremor, qui nos humiliet coram Deo, et fiducia quae nos erigat, ut audeamus familiariter ad ipsum accedere. אותם may be for אתּם, cf. Jer 1:16; but probably עשׂה is construed with a double accusative, as in Isa 42:16.
The prosperity which the Lord designs to procure for His people, is, Jer 33:10-13, further described in two strophes (Jer 33:10-11 and Jer 33:12-13); in Jer 33:10, Jer 33:11, the joyous life of men. In the land now laid waste, gladness and joy shall once more prevail, and God will be praised for this. The description, "it is desolate," etc., does not imply the burning of Jerusalem, Jer 52:12., but only the desolation which began about the end of the siege. "In this place" means "in this land;" this is apparent from the more detailed statement, "in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem." "The voice of gladness," etc., forms the subject of the verb ישּׁמע. On the expression see Jer 7:34; Jer 16:9; Jer 25:10. There is here added: "the voice of those who say, 'Praise the Lord,' " etc. - the usual liturgic formula in thanksgiving to God; cf. 2Ch 5:13; 2Ch 7:3; Ezr 3:11; Psa 106:1. תּודה, praise and thanks in word and deed; see Jer 17:26. On אשׁיב את־שׁבוּת see Jer 32:44. The rendering, "I shall bring back the captives of the land" (here as in Jer 33:7), is both grammatically indefensible, and further, unsuitable: (a) inappropriate, on account of כּבראשׁנה, for no previous restoration of captives had taken place; the leading of the people out of Egypt is never represented as a bringing back from captivity. And (b) it is grammatically untenable, because restoration to Canaan is expressed either by אל־הארץ  הביא, after Deu 30:5; or by השׁיב, with the mention of the place (); cf. Jer 16:15; Jer 24:6; Jer 32:37, etc.

Verses 12-13

In the land which is now laid waste, and emptied of men and beasts, shepherds, with their flocks, shall again move about and lie down. "This place," is specified by the mention of the several parts of the land, as in Jer 32:44; Jer 17:26. על־ידי מונה, at the hands, i.e., under the guidance, of him who counts them, viz., the shepherd, who counted the sheep when he took them out to the pasture as well as when he brought them back into the fold; cf. Virgil, Ecl. iii. 34.

Verses 14-26

Jer 33:14-26The re-establishment of the Davidic monarchy

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1597

and of the Levitical priesthood. - Jer 33:14. "Behold, days are coming, saith Jahveh, when I will perform the good word which I have spoken to the house of Israel, and concerning the house of Judah. Jer 33:15. In those days and at that time will I cause to sprout unto David a sprout of righteousness, and he shall do judgment and righteousness in the land. Jer 33:16. In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely; and this is how she shall be called, 'Jahveh our righteousness.' Jer 33:17. For thus saith Jahveh: David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel. Jer 33:18. Nor shall the Levitical priests want a man before me to offer a burnt-offering, to burn a meat-offering, or to perform sacrifice every day.
Jer 33:19. "And the word of Jahveh came unto Jeremiah, saying: Jer 33:20. Thus saith Jahveh, If ye shall be able to break my covenant (with) the day and my covenant (with) the night, so that there shall not be day and night in their proper time, Jer 33:21. Then also shall my covenant with David my servant be broken, so that he shall not have a son to reign upon his throne, and with the Levites, the priests, my ministers. Jer 33:22. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites who serve me.
Jer 33:23. "And the word of Jahveh came to Jeremiah, saying: Jer 33:24. Hast thou not seen what this people have spoken, saying, 'The two families which the Lord hath chosen, these He hath rejected?' and my people they have despised, so that they are no longer a nation before them. Jer 33:25. Thus saith Jahveh: If my covenant with day and night doth not exist, if I have not appointed the laws of heaven and earth, Jer 33:26. Then also will I reject the seed of Jacob and David my servant, so as not to take any of his seed as rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will turn their captivity, and take pity on them."

Verses 14-21

Jer 33:14-18 contain the promise of the restoration of the monarchy and the priesthood. Jer 33:19-26 further present two special messages from God, in the form of supplements, which guarantee the eternal continuance of these institutions.^[6]
The promise in Jer 33:14-16 has already been given in substance in Jer 23:5-6, and in our verses it is only formally extended, and thereby made more prominent. In Jer 33:14 it is designated as the establishment, i.e., the realization, of the good word which the Lord has spoken concerning Israel and Judah. "The good word" is, according to Deu 28:1-14, the blessing which the Lord has promised to His people if they obey His commands; cf. 1Ki 8:56. Here also must "the good word" be taken in the same general meaning; for our verse forms the transition from the promise of the restoration and blessing of Israel in the future (Jer 33:6-13) to the special promise of the renewal and completion of the Davidic monarchy (Jer 33:15.). In Jer 29:10, on the contrary, "the good word" is specially referred, by the following infinitival clause, to the deliverance of the people from Babylon. But it is unlikely

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1599

that "the good word" refers to the "sprout" of David, which is expressly promised in Jer 23:5., and repeated here, Jer 33:15.; for here a like promise to the Levites follows, while there is none in Jer 23, and it is here so closely linked with the promise regarding David, that it must be viewed as a portion of the "good word." In the change from אל to על in Jer 33:14, we must not, with Hengstenberg, seek a real difference; for in Jeremiah these prepositions often interchange without any difference of meaning, as in Jer 11:2; Jer 18:11; Jer 23:35, etc. The blessing promised to the people in the "good word" culminates in the promise, Jer 33:15., that the Lord will cause a righteous sprout to spring up for David. On the meaning of this promise, see the remarks on Jer 23:5-6. The difference made in the repetition of that promise is really unimportant. אצמיח instead of הקמתי does not change the sense. הצמיח, to cause to sprout of grow, corresponds to the figure of the צמח, under which the Messiah is represented in both passages. צמח צדקה is only a more sonorous expression for צמח צדּיק. The words "He shall rule as king and deal wisely," which in Jer 23:5 bring into prominence the contrast between the kingdom of the Messiah and that of the godless shepherd of the people, were unnecessary for the connection of our passage. Besides, in Jer 23:6 Israel is named together with Judah, instead of which, we have here, in Jer 33:16, Jerusalem; accordingly, the name "Jahveh Tsidkenu" is referred to Jerusalem, while in Jer 23:6 it is predicated of the sprout of David. The mention of Jerusalem instead of Israel is connected with the general scope of our prophecy, viz., to comfort the covenant people over the destruction of Jerusalem (Jer 33:4.). But that, through the mention simply of Judah and its capital, the ten tribes are not to be excluded from participation in the coming prosperity, may be seen even from Jer 33:14, where "the good word" is referred to Israel and Judah, and still more plainly from Jer 33:24, Jer 33:26, where this promise is made sure to the whole seed of Israel. The transference of the name Jahveh Tsidkenu from the sprout of David to the city of Jerusalem is connected with the fact, that the name only expresses what the Messiah will bring to the people (see Jer 23:6); the righteousness which He works in and on Jerusalem may, without changing the substance of the thought, be attributed to Jerusalem itself, inasmuch as Jerusalem reflects the righteousness which is bestowed on her by the Messiah.
This promise is, Jer 33:17, further confirmed by the renewal of that which the Lord had given King David, through Nathan the prophet, 2Sa 7:12-16, and that, too, in the form in which David himself had expressed it in his address to Solomon, shortly before his death, 1Ki 2:4, and in which Solomon had repeated it, 1Ki 8:25 and 1Ki 9:5. The formula לא יכּרת וגו, "there never will be cut off from David one sitting," etc., has the meaning, David will never want a descendant to occupy his throne; or, the posterity of David will possess the kingdom for ever. A temporary loss of the throne is not thereby excluded, but only such a permanent loss as

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1600

would be caused by the family of David becoming extinct, or by the kingdom in Israel either passing over to some other family, or in some way or other coming to an end; see on 1Ki 2:4. - The very same promise is given to the Levitical priests, i.e., the priests of the tribe or family of Levi (כּהנים as in Deu 17:9, Deu 17:18; Deu 18:1, etc.). They shall never want one to bring and prepare an offering before the Lord. Burnt-offering, meat-offering, and sin-offering are the three species of sacrifice which were to be brought, according to the law, as in Jer 17:26. By means of the apposition "the Levites," the priests are designated as the legitimate priesthood, established as such in virtue of God's choice of the tribe of Levi, in contrast with priests such as Jeroboam appointed, out of the common people, for the worship set up by him. Not only shall Israel have priests, but priests out of the tribe of Levi, which was chosen by God for the sacerdotal office, as the medium of communicating His gracious gifts. The designation of the priests as "the Levites" corresponds, accordingly, to the kings of the family of David. Such a view explains this addition to our passage, to which critics such as Hitzig have taken objection. The Davidic kingdom and the Levitical priesthood were the two pillars and bases of the Old Testament theocracy, on which its existence and continuance depended. The priesthood formed the medium of approach for the people into divine favour. The kingdom assured them of the divine guidance.^[7]
Both of these pillars were broken with the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple; the theocracy the appeared to have ceased to exist. At this time, when the kingdom, with its ordinances of justice and of grace, bestowed by God, was being dissolved, the Lord, in order to keep His people from despair, declares that these two institutions, in accordance with His promise, shall not fall to the ground, but shall stand for ever. By this, God's own people received a pledge for the re-establishment and renovation of the kingdom of God. Such is the object of this promise. - As to the kind and mode of reinstitution

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1601

of both of these ordinances, which were abolished when the state came to ruin, the prophecy now before us gives no explanation; but in the emphatic confirmation of the prophecy which follows, we find brief indications which clearly show that the restoration spoken of will not be a reinstitution of the old form which is now perishing, but a renovation of it, in its essential features, to a permanent existence.
The confirmations of these promises, which follow them in Jer 33:19-26, are each introduced by separate headings, perhaps not merely to render them more prominent, but because the Lord revealed them separately to the prophet; but it by no means follows from this that they are later additions, without any connection. Jer 33:20. "If ye shall break my covenant with the day,...then also will my covenant with David...be broken." This if betokens the impossible; man cannot alter the arrangement in nature for the regular alternation of day and night. היום and הלּילה are in apposition to בּריתי, "my covenant the day - the night," for "my covenant with regard to the day and the night, which is this, that day and night shall return at their appointed times." The ו before לבלתּי is explanatory. יומם־ולילה are adverbs, "day and night," for "the regular alternation of day and night." These divine arrangements in nature are called a covenant; because God, after the flood, gave a pledge that they should uninterruptedly continue, in a covenant made with the human race; cf. Gen 9:9 with Gen 8:22. As this covenant of nature cannot be broken by men, so also the covenant of grace of the Lord with David and the Levites cannot be broken, i.e., annulled. The covenant with David consisted in the promise that his kingdom should endure for ever (see Jer 33:17); that with the Levites, in the eternal possession of the right to the priesthood. The institution of the priesthood is certainly not represented in the law as a covenant; it consisted merely in the choice of Aaron and his sons as priests by God, Exo 28:1. But, inasmuch as they were thereby brought into a peculiar relation to the Lord, and thus had vouchsafed to them not merely privileges and promises, but also had laid on them duties, the fulfilment of which was a condition of receiving the privileges, this relation might be called a covenant; and indeed, in Num 25:11., the promise

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1602

given to Phinehas, that he should have the priesthood as an eternal possession, is called a covenant of peace and an eternal covenant of priesthood. This promise concerned the whole priesthood in the person of Phinehas, and the Levites also, inasmuch as the Levites were given to the priests; hence there is mention made in Mal 2:4, Mal 2:8, of a covenant with Levi. In this prophecy, too, mention is made of the priests alone. The general idea contained in the words "the Levites," placed first, is more clearly defined by the apposition "the priests," and restricted to the priests of the tribe of Levi.

Verses 22-26

In order to make still more impressive the pledge given, that the covenant with David and the Levitical priesthood can never be broken, the Lord adds the promise of a numerous increase of the seed of David and the Levites. אשׁר as correlative to כּן stands for כּאשׁר; for in the accusative lies the general reference to place, time, kind, and manner; cf. Ew. §360 a, 333 a. The comparison with the innumerable host of stars and the immeasurable quantity of the sand reminds us of the patriarchal promises, Gen 15:5; Gen 22:17. In this way, the promises that apply to all Israel are specially referred to the family of David and the Levites ("the Levites," Jer 33:22, is abbreviated from "the Levites, the priests," Jer 33:21). This transference, however, is not a mere hyperbole which misses the mark; for, as Jahn observes, an immense increase of the royal and priestly families would only have been a burden on the people (Graf). The import of the words of the verse is simply that the Lord purposes to fulfil the promise of His blessing, made to the patriarchs in favour of their whole posterity, in the shape of a numerous increase; but this promise will now be specially applied to the posterity of David and to the priests, so that there shall never be wanting descendants of David to occupy the throne, nor Levites to perform the service of the Lord. The question is not about a "change of the whole of Israel into the family of David and the tribe of Levi" (Hengstenberg); and if the increase of the family of David and the Levites correspond in multitude with the number of all the people of Israel, this increase cannot be a burden on the people. But the question, whether this promise is to be understood literally, of the increase of the ordinary descendants of David and the

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1603

Levites, or spiritually, of their spiritual posterity, cannot be decided, as Hengstenberg and Nägelsbach think, by referring to the words of the Lord in Exo 19:6, that all Israel shall be a kingdom of priests, and to the prophetic passages, Isa 66:6, Isa 66:23., according to which the whole people shall be priests to God, while Levites also shall be taken from among the heathen. For this prophecy does not treat of the final glory of the people of God, but only of the innumerable increase of those who shall attain membership in the family of David and the Levitical priests. The question that has been raised is rather to be decided in accordance with the general promises regarding the increase of Israel; and in conformity with these, we answer that it will not result from the countless increase of the descendants of Jacob according to the flesh, but from the incorporation, among the people of God, of the heathen who return to the God of Israel. As the God-fearing among the heathen will be raised, for their piety, to be the children of Abraham, and according to the promise, Isa 66:20., even Levitical priests taken from among them, so shall the increase placed in prospect before the descendants of David and Levi be realized by the reception of the heathen into the royal and sacerdotal privileges of the people of God under the new covenant.
This view of our verse is confirmed by the additional proof given of the promised restoration of Israel, Jer 33:23-26; for here there is assurance given to the seed of Jacob and David, and therefore to all Israel, that they shall be kept as the people of God. The occasion of this renewed confirmation was the allegation by the people, that the Lord had rejected the two families, i.e., Israel and Judah (cf. Jer 31:27, Jer 31:31; Jer 32:20), called, Isa 8:14, the two houses of Israel. With such words they despised the people of the Lord, as being no longer a people before them, i.e., in their eyes, in their opinion. That those who spoke thus were Jews, who, on the fall of the kingdom of Judah, despaired of the continuance of God's election of Israel, is so very evident, that Hengstenberg may well find it difficult to understand how several modern commentators could think of heathens - Egyptians (Schnurrer), Chaldeans (Jahn), Samaritans (Movers), or neighbours of the Jews and

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1604

of Ezekiel on the Chebar (Hitzig). The verdict pronounced on what these people said, "they despise, or contemn, my people," at once relieves us from any need for making such assumptions, as soon as we assign the full and proper force to the expression "my people" = the people of Jahveh. Just as in this passage, so too in Jer 29:32, "this people" is interchanged with "my people" as a designation of the Jews. Moreover, as Graf correctly says, the expression "this people" nowhere occurs in the prophets of the exile as applied to the heathen; on the contrary, it is very frequently employed by Jeremiah to designate the people of Judah in their estrangement from the Lord: Jer 4:10; Jer 5:14, Jer 5:23; Jer 6:19; Jer 7:33; Jer 8:5; Jer 9:14; Jer 13:10; Jer 14:10; Jer 15:1, Jer 15:20, and often elsewhere. "My people," on the other hand, marks Judah and Israel as the people of God. In contrast with such contempt of the people of God, the Lord announces, "If my covenant with day and night does not stand, if I have not appointed the laws of heaven and earth, then neither shall I cast away the seed of Jacob." The לא is repeated a second time before the verb. Others take the two antecedent clauses as one: "If I have not made my covenant with day and night, the laws of heaven and earth." This construction also is possible; the sense remains unchanged. בּריתי יומם ולילה is imitated from Jer 33:20. "The laws of heaven and earth" are the whole order of nature; cf. Jer 31:35. The establishment, institution of the order of nature, is a work of divine omnipotence. This omnipotence has founded the covenant of grace with Israel, and pledged its continuance, despite the present destruction of the kingdom of Judah and the temporary rejection of the guilty people. But this covenant of grace includes not merely the choosing of David, but also the choosing of the seed of Jacob, the people of Israel, on the ground of which David was chosen to be the ruler over Israel. Israel will therefore continue to exist, and that, too, as a nation which will have rulers out of the seed of David, the servant of the Lord. "The mention of the three patriarchs recalls to mind the whole series of the promises made to them" (Hengstenberg). The plural משׁלים does not, certainly, refer directly to the promise made regarding the sprout of David, the Messiah, but at the same time does not stand in contradiction with

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1605

it; for the revival and continued existence of the Davidic rule in Israel culminates in the Messiah. On כּי cf. Jer 31:23; Jer 30:3, Jer 30:18, and the explanations on Jer 32:44. The Qeri אשׁיב rests on Jer 33:11, but is unnecessary; for אשׁוּב makes good enough sense, and corresponds better to ורחמתּים, in so far as it exactly follows the fundamental passage, Deu 30:3, where רחם is joined with שׁוּב את־שׁבוּת. I. The Labour and Suffering of the Prophet Before and after the Conquest and Destruction of Jerusalem - Jeremiah 34-45
Under this title may be placed the whole of the contents of these twelve chapters, which fall into three divisions. For Jer 34-36 contain partly utterances of Jeremiah in the early part of the siege of Jerusalem under Zedekiah, partly matters of fact in Jehoiakim's time. Next, mention is made, in Jer 37-39, of the toils and sufferings of the prophet during that siege, until the fall of the city; then, in Jer 40-44, is depicted his active labour among the people who had been left behind in the land by the Chaldeans, and who afterwards fled to Egypt; finally, as an appendix to the account of his labours among the people, we find, in Jer 45:1-5, the words of comfort addressed to Baruch by Jeremiah. The second of these divisions is marked by a historical introduction, Jer 37:1-2, and the third by a somewhat lengthened prophetic heading. Only Jer 34-36, which we regard as the first division, seems to be without an external bond of unity. Graf, Ewald, Nägelsbach, and others have consequently marked them as appendixes; but in this way neither their position nor their connection is at all accounted for. The relation of Jer 34 to the following is analogous to that of Jer 21:1-14. Just as the collection of special announcements regarding judgment and deliverance, Jer 21:1-14, was introduced by the utterances of the prophet in the beginning of the last siege of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans; so too, in our third division, the collected evidences of the labours of Jeremiah before and after the

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1606

destruction of Jerusalem, are introduced, Jer 34, by the utterances which predict quite definitely what shall be the issue of the siege of the city and the fate of the king and people. The first of these utterances is set in a frame of historical statements regarding the siege (Jer 34:1, Jer 34:7); this setting marks it out as an introduction to the notices following. But the second utterance, Jer 34:8-22, refers to the fact of the manumission of the Hebrew men-and maid-servants during the siege, and the cancelling of that measure afterwards. The following chapters, Jer 35, 36, furnish two proofs of the activity of the prophet under Jehoiakim, which, on account of their historical nature, could not be introduced till now, since they would not admit of being inserted in the collection of the particular prophecies of coming judgment, Jer 21-29.
A. Prophecies Delivered under Zedekiah, and Events of Jehoiakim's Time - Jeremiah 34-36
Concerning Zedekiah and the Emancipation of the Men-and Maid-Servants - Jeremiah 34
This chapter contains two prophecies of the time of the siege of Jerusalem under Zedekiah, of which the first, Jer 34:1-7, announces to the king the fruitlessness of resistance to the power of the Chaldeans; the second, Jer 34:8-22, threatens the princes and people of Judah with severe judgments for annulling the manumission of the Hebrew men-and maid-servants. Both of these utterances belong to the first period of the siege, probably the ninth year of the reign of Zedekiah.

Chap. 34

Verse 1

Jer 34:1The message to Zedekiah is regarded by Hitzig, Ewald, Graf, Nägelsbach, etc. as a supplement to Jer 32:1., and as giving, in its complete form, the prophecy to which Jer 32:3. was referred, as the reason of the confinement of Jeremiah in the court of the prison. Certainly it is so far true that Jeremiah, in Jer 34:2-5, expresses himself more fully regarding the fate of King Zedekiah at the fall of Jerusalem into the hands of the Chaldeans than in Jer 32:3-5; Jer 21:3., and Jer 37:17; but we are not warranted in drawing the inference that this message forms a historical appendix or supplement to Jer 32:3,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1607

and was the occasion or reason of Jeremiah's imprisonment. See, on the contrary, the remarks on Jer 32:3. It is not given here as an appendix to explain the reason of the prophet's imprisonment, but as a prophecy from which we may see how King Zedekiah was forewarned, from the very beginning of the siege, of what its issue would be, that he might frame his conduct accordingly. Nor does it belong to the period when Nebuchadnezzar, after beating off the Egyptians who had come to the relief of the beleaguered city, had returned to the siege of Jerusalem, but to the earliest period of the siege, when Zedekiah might still cherish the hope of defeating and driving off the Chaldeans through the help of the Egyptians. - According to Jer 34:1, the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah when "Nebuchadnezzar and," i.e., with, "all his host, and all the kingdoms of the land of the dominion of his hand, and all the nations, were fighting against Jerusalem and all her towns." The words are multiplied to represent the strength of the Chaldean army, so as to deepen the impression of overpowering might, against which resistance is vain. The army consists of men drawn from all the kingdoms of the territory he rules, and of all nations. ארץ ממשׁלת means the same as ארץ ממשׁלתּו, Jer 51:28, the territory over which his dominion, which includes many kingdoms, extends. The lxx have omitted "all the nations" as superfluous. See a like conglomeration of words in a similar description, Eze 26:7. "All her towns" are the towns of Judah which belong to Jerusalem; see Jer 19:15. According to Jer 34:7, the strong towns not yet taken are meant, especially those strongly fortified, Lachish and Azekah in the plain (Jos 15:39, Jos 15:35), the former of which is shown still under the name Um Lakhis, while the latter is to be sought for in the vicinity of Socho; see on Jos 10:3, Jos 10:10, and 2Ch 11:9. - Jeremiah is to say to the king:

Verses 2-7

Jer 34:2-7"Thus saith Jahveh: Behold, I will deliver this city into the hand of the king of Babylon, that he may burn it with fire. Jer 34:3. And thou shalt not escape from his hand, but shalt certainly be seized and delivered into his hand; and thine eyes shall see the eyes of the king of Babylon, and his mouth shall speak with thy mouth, and thou shalt go to Babylon. Jer 34:4. But hear the word of Jahveh, O Zedekiah, king

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1608

of Judah. Thus saith Jahveh concerning thee: Thou shalt not die by the sword. Jer 34:5. In peace shalt thou die; and as with the burnings of thy fathers, the former kings who were before thee, so shall they make a burning for thee, and they shall wail for thee, [crying,] 'Alas, lord!' for I have spoken the word, saith Jahveh. - On Jer 34:2, Jer 34:3, cf. Jer 32:3-5. "But hear," Jer 34:4, introduces an exception to what has been said before; but the meaning of Jer 34:4, Jer 34:5 is disputed. They are usually understood in this say: Zedekiah shall be carried into exile to Babylon, but shall not be killed with the sword, or executed, but shall die a peaceful death, and be buried with royal honours. But C. B. Michaelis, Venema, Hitzig, and Graf take the words as an exception that will occur, should Zedekiah follow the advice given him to deliver himself up to the king of Babylon, instead of continuing the struggle. Then what is denounced in Jer 34:3 will not happen; Zedekiah shall not be carried away to Babylon, but shall die as king in Jerusalem. This view rests on the hypothesis that the divine message has for its object to induce the king to submit and give up himself (cf. Jer 38:17.). But this supposition has no foundation; and what must be inserted, as the condition laid before Zedekiah, "if thou dost willingly submit to the king of Babylon," is quite arbitrary, and incompatible with the spirit of the word, "But hear the word of Jahveh," for in this case Jer 34:4 at least would require to run, "Obey the word of Jahveh" (שׁמע בּדבר ), as Jer 38:20. To take the words שׁמע דברin the sense, "Give ear to the word, obey the word of Jahveh," is not merely inadmissible grammatically, but also against the context; for the word of Jahveh which Zedekiah is to hear, gives no directions as to how he is to act, but is simply an intimation as to what the end of his life shall be: to change or avert this does not stand in his power, so that we cannot here think of obedience or disobedience. The message in Jer 34:4, Jer 34:5 states more in detail what that was which lay before Zedekiah: he shall fall into the hands of the king of Babylon, be carried into exile in Babylon, yet shall not die a violent death through the sword, but die peacefully, and be buried with honour - not, like Jehoiakim, fall in battle, and be left unmourned and unburied (Jer 22:18.). This intimation accords with the notices

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1609

given elsewhere as to the end of Zedekiah (Jer 32:5; Jer 39:5-7). Although Zedekiah died a prisoner in Babylon (Jer 52:11), yet his imprisonment would not necessarily be an obstacle in the way of an honourable burial after the fashion of his fathers. When Jehoiachin, after an imprisonment of thirty-seven years, was raised again to royal honours, then also might there be accorded not merely a tolerably comfortable imprisonment to Zedekiah himself, but to the Jews also, at his death, the permission to bury their king according to their national custom. Nor is anything to be found elsewhere contrary to this view of the words. The supposition that Zedekiah caused the prophet to be imprisoned on account of this message to him, which Nägelsbach has laboured hard to reconcile with the common acceptation of the passage, is wholly devoid of foundation in fact, and does not suit the time into which this message falls; for Jeremiah was not imprisoned till after the time when the Chaldeans were obliged for a season to raise the siege, on the approach of the Egyptians, and that, too, not at the command of the king, but by the watchman at the gate, on pretence that he was a deserter. "Thou shalt die in peace," in contrast with "thou shalt die by the sword," marks a peaceful death on a bed of sickness in contrast with execution, but not (what Graf introduces into the words) in addition, his being deposited in the sepulchre of his fathers. "With the burnings of thy fathers," etc., is to be understood, according to 2Ch 16:14; 2Ch 21:19, of the burning of aromatic spices in honour of the dead; for the burning of corpses was not customary among the Hebrews: see on 2Ch 16:14. On "alas, lord!" see Jer 22:18. This promise is strengthened by the addition, "for I have spoken the word," where the emphasis lies on the אני: I the Lord have spoken the word, which therefore shall certainly be fulfilled. - In Jer 34:6, Jer 34:7 it is further remarked in conclusion, that Jeremiah addressed these words to the king during the siege of Jerusalem, when all the cities of Judah except Lachish and Azekah were already in the power of the Chaldeans. ערי is not in apposition to ערי יהוּדה, but belongs to נשׁארוּ: "they were left among the towns of Judah as strong cities;" i.e., of the strong cities of Judah, they alone had not yet been conquered.

Verses 8-11

Threatening because of the Re-enslavement of the Liberated Hebrew Men-and Maid-servants. - Jer 34:8-11 describe the occasion of the word of the Lord, which follows in Jer 34:12-22. It came to Jeremiah "after King Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people in Jerusalem, to proclaim liberty to them, that every one should send away his man-servant, or his maid-servant, being a Hebrew or Hebrewess, so that none should impose servitude on any one of them who was a Jew, his brother. Jer 34:10. And all the princes and all the people who entered into the covenant obeyed, each one setting free his man-servant and his maid-servant, and not imposing servitude on them any more: they obeyed and each one set them free. Jer 34:11. But they turned round afterwards, and brought back the servants and the handmaids whom they had set free, and brought them under subjection, for servants and for handmaids." The covenant which Zedekiah concluded with all the people at Jerusalem, according to what follows, consisted in a solemn vow made before the Lord in the temple, probably confirmed by sacrifices, to set free the male and female slaves of Hebrew descent, in conformity with the law, Exo 21:1-4; Deu 15:12.
The law required the gratuitous manumission of these after seven years of service. This time, indeed, is not mentioned in our verses, but it is assumed as well known through the law. But, in the general departure of the people from the Lord and His commandments, the observance of this law had probably long been intermitted, so that, in consequence of the solemn engagement to obey it once more, a great number of Hebrew male and female slaves received their freedom, inasmuch as very many had served longer than seven years; however, we need not suppose that all bond men and women were liberated at once. The resolution, Jer 34:9, that every one should liberate his Hebrew man-or maid-servant, and that no one should continue to impose servitude on a Jew, his brother, i.e., compel him any longer to serve as a slave, is conditioned by the law, which is assumed as well known: this also accords with the expression לבלתּי עבד־בּם, which is used in a general way of the treatment of Hebrew men-and maid-servants, Lev 25:39. However, it is also possible that a liberation of all bond men and women took place without regard to the

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1611

duration of their servitude, partly for the purpose of averting, by such obedience to the law, the calamity now threatening the city, and partly also to employ the liberated slaves in the defence of the city; for, according to Jer 34:21., the emancipation took place during the siege of Jerusalem, and after the departure of the Chaldeans the solemn promise was revoked. The expression קתא דרור, "to proclaim liberty," is taken from Lev 25:10, but it does not prove that the manumission took place on a sabbath-or jubilee-year. להם refers ad sensum to those who were bondmen and had a right to be set free. The general expression is explained by שׁלּח חפשׁים, and this again is more closely defined by לבלתּי עבד־בּם (cf. Lev 25:39). אישׁ  בּיהוּדי אחיהוּ, (that no one should labour) "though a Jew, who is his brother," i.e., a fellow-countryman; i.e., that no one should impose servitude on a Jew, as being a compatriot. "To enter into a covenant" is to assume its obligation; cf. 2Ch 15:12; Eze 16:8. The Kethib יכבישׁום receives, in the Qeri, the vowels of the Kal, since the Hiphil of this verb does not occur elsewhere, only the Kal, cf. 2Ch 28:10; but the alteration is unnecessary - the Hiphil may intensify the active meaning.

Verse 12

Jer 34:12The threat of punishment. - Jer 34:12. "Then came the word of Jahveh to Jeremiah from Jahveh, saying: Jer 34:13. Thus saith Jahveh, the God of Israel, 'I made a covenant with your fathers in the day when I brought them out of the land of Egypt, from a house of bondmen, saying, Jer 34:14. At the end of seven years shall ye set free each man his brother, who is a Hebrew that sold himself to thee; and he shall serve thee six years, then shalt thou send him away from thee free: but your fathers hearkened not unto me, nor inclined their ear. Jer 34:15. But you had turned just now, and had done what is right in mine eyes, because each man proclaimed liberty to his neighbour, ad ye had made a covenant before me in the house on which my name is called. Jer 34:16. But ye turned again and profaned my name, and each one made his man-servant and his handmaid, whom he had sent away free, at their pleasure, to return, and ye brought them into subjection, to be men-and maid-servants to you. Jer 34:17. Therefore, thus saith Jahveh, Ye have not hearkened unto me in proclaiming liberty each man to his brother, and each man'

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1612

to his neighbour: behold, I proclaim a liberty for you, saith Jahveh, to the sword, to the pestilence, and to famine, and I will deliver you up for maltreatment to all the kingdoms of the earth. Jer 34:18. And I shall make the men who have transgressed my covenant, that have not kept the words of the covenant which they concluded before me, like the calf which they cut in two, and between whose pieces they passed. Jer 34:19. The princes of Judah and the princes of Jerusalem, the courtiers, and the priests, and all he people of the land, who passed through between the pieces of the calf, Jer 34:20. Them will I give into the hand of their enemies, and into the hand of those who seek their life, so that their corpses shall be for food to the birds of heaven and to the beasts of the earth. Jer 34:21. And Zedekiah, king of Judah, and his princes will I give into the hand of their enemies, and into the hand of those who seek their life, and into the hand of the army of the king of Babylon, that has departed from against you. Jer 34:22. Behold, I will command, saith Jahveh, and will make them return to this city, and they shall fight against it, and shall take it, and shall burn it with fire; and the cities of Judah will I make a desolation, without an inhabitant."

Verses 13-16

In Jer 34:13-16 the Lord sets before the people and their rulers their new offence; in Jer 34:17-22 He announces to them the punishment for this new deed by which the covenant is broken. In order to place the transgression in its proper light, He mentions, first of all, that, when He led Israel out of Egypt, He concluded with them a covenant to the effect that every one of them should set free his Hebrew servant at the end of seven years; He also mentions that their fathers had transgressed this covenant (Jer 34:13, Jer 34:14). The designation of Egypt as a house of bondmen, as in Exo 13:3, Exo 13:14; Exo 20:2; Deu 6:12, etc., possesses a special emphasis, and points to what is mentioned in Deu 15:15 as the motive for obeying the law referred to in the address. Because Israel was a servant in Egypt, and the Lord has redeemed him out of this house of bondmen, therefore must they not treat as slaves their brethren who had fallen into poverty, but set them free after six years of service. The expression "at the end (after the lapse) of seven years" is to be understood in the same way as the expression "after

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1613

eight days." As this just means "when seven days are completed," so also, according to the law, Exo 21:2; Deu 15:12, the emancipation was to follow in the seventh year, after six full years of service. "Who sold himself to thee" is an expression copied from Deu 15:12. - From this sin of their fathers they had now for a little turned away, and, in a solemn covenant, resolved to free the bondmen, as the law decreed (Jer 34:15); but they have immediately profaned the name of the Lord again by revoking this decree, viz., by breaking the covenant made before God. לנפשׁם, "according to their pleasure," like eלנפשׁהּ, Deu 21:14.

Verses 17-18

The announcement of punishment. Because ye have not hearkened, by proclaiming, every one, liberty to his bondman (this certainly had been done, but was again undone by annulling the decree), therefore I proclaim liberty for you; i.e., you, who have hitherto been my servants (Lev 25:55), I discharge from this relation, - deliver you up to your fate as regards the sword, etc., that the sword, famine, and pestilence may have power over you. For לזועה see Jer 15:4. - In Jer 34:18 the construction is disputed. Many, including Luther, take העגל as the second object to נתתּי: "I will make the men...the calf," i.e., like the calf. But, though נתן is frequently construed with a double accusative with the meaning of making some thing another thing (cf. e.g., Jer 34:22, Gen 17:5; Exo 7:1), yet in such a case the predicative-object does not readily take the article. Moreover, נתן, in the sense required here, to make like = treat as, is joined with כּ, as in Isa 41:2; Eze 28:2, Eze 28:6; Gen 42:30; 1Ki 10:27, etc. Finally, Rosenmüller objects: continuata versu 19 personarum descriptio et repetitio verbi yṭitanfw̱ Jer 34:20 vix permittunt, propositionem hoc versu absolvi. For these reasons, L. de Dieu, Rosenmüller, Ewald, and Graf have taken העגל as being in apposition to הבּרית, and the enumeration "princes of Judah," etc., Jer 34:19, as a continuation or exposition of האנשׁים, Jer 34:18, and ונתתּי אותם, Jer 34:20, as a resumption of the same words in Jer 34:18. According to this view, Jer 34:18-20 would form a series of appositions: "I will give the men...that have not kept the words of the covenant which they concluded before me...the princes of Judah who passed between the parts of the calf, - these will I give into the hands of their enemies." But,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1614

apart from the consideration that the enumeration of the covenant-breakers (viz., the princes of Judah, etc.), which is added by way of apposition in Jer 34:19, ought not to come in till after the apposition to הבּרית, which would be a harsh and complicated arrangement of the members of the sentence, this construction seems untenable for the following reasons: (a) "The calf that they cut," etc., which forms the explanatory apposition to "the covenant," is separated from it by the intervening clause, "which they made before me." And (b), even though we might modify this harshness by repeating את־דּברי before העגל, yet the mode of expression, "they have not performed the words of the calf which they cut in two, and between whose parts they passed," would be a very stiff and unnatural one for "they have not performed what they vowed or sware in presence of the parts of the calf which they had halved, and when they passed through between these pieces." With Maurer and Hitzig, therefore, we abide by the older view, which takes העגל as the second object to ונתתּי: "I will make the men...the calf," or, better, "like the calf which they cut in two," etc. The article is used with עגל because this predicate is more exactly determined by relative clauses, and העגל stands for כּעגל, since, as often happens, the כּ of likeness is dropped to give more point to the idea. We make Jer 34:19 begin a new sentence, and take the names of this verse as objects absolute, which, by אותם following ונתתּי, are subordinated to the verb: "As for the princes of Judah...them shall I give...." - From Jer 34:18 we see that, when alliances were entered into, the contracting parties slaughtered an עגל, "calf," i.e., a young bullock, cut it in two halves, and went through between the pieces that were placed opposite one another. See on Gen 15:10 for details regarding this most ancient custom and its meaning: according to the account of Ephraem Syrus, it is of Chaldean origin. Thus are explained the phrases used to signify the making of a covenant. כּרת בּרית, to cut a covenant, ὅρκια τέμνειν, faedus ferire, i.e., ferienda hostia faedus facere. We cannot with certainty infer, from the threatening pronounced in this passage, that this rite originally signified nothing more than that he who broke his promise would be treated like the animal that had been slaughtered. For the threatening is merely a conclusion

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1615

drawn from the sacred act; but this does not exclude a deeper meaning of the rite.
Jer 34:19-22 give the real explanation of the threatening attached to the ritual of the covenant. Princes, officers of the court, priests and people, who have transgressed the covenant, shall die by the hand of the enemy, and perish ignominiously. On Jer 34:20, cf. Jer 7:33; Jer 16:4, etc. On סריסים see on Gen 37:36. King Zedekiah also, with his princes, his retinue, shall fall into the hand of his enemies, ay, into the hands of the Chaldeans, who have now withdrawn from Jerusalem (on עלה  see on Jer 21:2). See also Gen 37:5-8. The Example of the Rechabites
By the command of God, Jeremiah brings the family of the Rechabites (who had fled for refuge to Jerusalem before the approach of the Chaldeans) into one of the chambers of the temple, and sets before them some wine to drink (Jer 35:1-5). They decline to drink, because the head of their family had forbidden them the use of wine, as well as the possession of houses and the cultivation of the soil, and had commanded them to live in tents (Jer 35:6-11). Jeremiah is to put this before the people of Judah. The Rechabites faithfully observe the command of their ancestor, while the people of Judah transgress the commands of their God, which are continually presented to them (Jer 35:12-16). Therefore the threatened calamity shall fall upon Judah; but the house of Rechab, as a reward for their faithfulness to the injunctions of their ancestor, shall continue for ever (Jer 35:17-19).
According to Jer 35:1, this word of the Lord came to Jeremiah in the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim, and, according to Jer 35:11, previous to the arrival of Nebuchadnezzar and his host before Jerusalem; therefore perhaps in the summer of the year 606 b.c., for Jerusalem was taken for the first time by Nebuchadnezzar in the ninth month (December) of that year.

Chap. 35

Verses 1-11

Jer 35:1-11Jeremiah's dealings with the Rechabites - Jer 35:2. Jeremiah is to go to the house, i.e., the family, of the Rechabites, speak with them, and bring them into tone of the chambers of the temple, and set before them wine to drink. בּית , Jer 35:2, Jer 35:3, Jer 35:18, is exchanged for בּני בית־הרכבים, Jer 35:5, from which it is apparent that "the house of the Rechabites"

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1616

does not mean their dwelling-place, but the family, called in 1Ch 2:55 בּית־רכב. According to this passage, the Rechabites were a branch of the Kenites, i.e., descendants of the Kenite, the father-in-law of Moses (Jdg 1:16), who had gone to Canaan with the Israelites, and welt among them, partly in the wilderness on the southern frontier of the tribe of Judah (1Sa 15:6; 1Sa 27:10; 1Sa 30:29), partly at Kadesh in Naphtali (Jdg 4:11, Jdg 4:17; Jdg 5:24). Their ancestor, or father of the tribe, was Rechab, the father of Jonadab, with whom Jehu made a friendly alliance (2Ki 10:15, 2Ki 10:23). Jonadab had laid on them the obligation to live in the special manner mentioned below, in order to keep them in the simplicity of nomad life observed by their fathers, and to preserve them from the corrupting influences connected with a settled life. לשׁכות, "cells of the temple," were additional buildings in the temple fore-courts, used partly for keeping the stores of the temple (1Ch 28:12), partly as dwellings for those who served in it, and as places of meeting for those who came to visit it; see Eze 40:17.

Verses 3-4

In executing the command of the Lord, Jeremiah took (went for) Jaazaniah, son of Jeremiah, son of Habaziniah, and all his brethren, and sons, and the whole house of the Rechabites, and brought them into the temple-chamber of the sons of Hanan. Jaazaniah was probably the then chief of the Rechabites. The chamber of the sons of Hanan was situated next the princes' chamber, which stood over that of Maaseiah the door-keeper. Nothing further is known about Hanan the son of Jigdaliah; here he is called "the man of God," an honourable title of the prophets - see e.g., 1Ki 12:22 - for, according to the usual mode of construction, אישׁ האלהים does not belong to Jigdaliah, but to Hanan, cf. Jer 28:1; Zec 1:1. "The chamber of the princes" is the chamber where the princes, the chiefs of the people, used to assemble in the temple. Its position is more exactly described by ממּעל לל, "over the chamber of Maaseiah," but not very clearly for us, since the buildings of the temple fore-courts are nowhere else more exactly described; however, see on Jer 36:10. Maaseiah was שׁמר הסּף, "keeper of the threshold," i.e., overseer of the watchmen of the temple gates, of which, according to Jer 52:24 and 2Ki 25:18, there were three, who are

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1617

there mentioned along with the high priest and his substitute Maaseiah is probably the same whose son Zephaniah was כּהן המּשׁנה , cf. Jer 52:24 with Jer 37:3; Jer 29:25, and Jer 21:1.

Verses 5-7

There, Jeremiah caused bowls filled with wine to be set before the Rechabites, and commanded them to drink. (גּביעים are large goblets, bowls, out of which drinking-cups [כּסות] were filled.) But they explained that they did not drink wine, because their father, i.e., their ancestor, Jonadab had forbidden them and their posterity to drink wine for ever, as also to build houses, to sow seed, and to plant vineyards, i.e., to settle themselves down in permanent dwellings and to pursue agriculture. ולא יהיה לכם, "And there shall not be to you," sc. what has just been named, i.e., ye must not possess houses, growing-crops, or vineyards (cf. Jer 35:9),^[8] but ye are to dwell in tents all your life, that ye may live long, etc. This promise is an imitation of that found in Exo 20:12.

Verses 8-11

This command of their forefather they observe in all points, and therefore dwell in tents; and only because of Nebuchadnezzar's arrival in the country have they come to Jerusalem, in order to find refuge for a time from the army of the Chaldeans and that of Aram (the Arameans). The special mention of the army of Aram in connection with that of the Chaldeans is perhaps due to the frequent predatory incursions made, at an earlier period, on Israel and Judah by the Syrians. According to 2Ki 24:2, after Jehoiakim had rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar, hostile bands of Arameans invaded Judah for the purpose of laying waste the country.

Verses 12-17

Jer 35:12-17The example of the Rechabites is one for Judah. - Jeremiah is to proclaim the word of the Lord to the people of Judah, as follows: Jer 35:13. "Thus saith Jahveh of hosts, the God of Israel: Go and say to the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Will ye not receive instruction by listening to my words? saith Jahveh. Jer 35:14. The words of Jonadab the son of Rechab, who commanded this sons not to drink wine, are performed, and they have drunk no wine to this day, but have obeyed the command of their father. But I have spoken unto you, rising up early and speaking, yet ye have not listened unto me. Jer 35:15. And I sent unto you all my servants the prophets, rising early and sending them, saying, Turn ye, now, every one from his evil way, and do good deeds, and do not go after other gods, to serve them; then shall ye dwell in the land which I have given to you and to your fathers. But ye did not incline your ear, nor hearken unto me. Jer 35:16. Yea, the children of Jonadab the son of Rechab have observed the commandment of their father which he commanded them, while this people have not hearkened unto me. Jer 35:17. Therefore, thus saith Jahveh, the God of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I will bring upon Judah and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem all the evil which I have uttered regarding them, because I spake unto them and they did not hear, and I called unto them, but they did not answer. Jer 35:18. And to the house of the Rechabites Jeremiah said: Thus saith Jahveh of hosts, the God of Israel, Because ye have listened to the command of Jonadab your father, and have kept all his commandments, and have done according to all that he commanded you, Jer 35:19. Therefore, thus saith Jahveh of hosts, the God of Israel, Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever."
The command, "Go and speak to the men of Judah," etc., shows that it was not in the chamber of the temple, in presence of the Rechabites, but probably in one of the temple fore-courts, that Jeremiah addressed the following word of the Lord to the people assembled there. In order to shame the Jews thoroughly, he shows them the faithfulness with which the Rechabites observe the ordinances of their ancestor Jonadab. The character of the address, as one intended to rouse feelings of shame, is indicated even at the beginning of Jer 35:13 : "Will ye not receive instruction by hearkening to the words of the Lord?" The Hoph. הוּקם is construed as a passive with the accus.; in the

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1619

older writers we frequently find this construction, in which the passive is used impersonally, hence the sing. is here employed: cf. Ges. §143, 1, Ew. §295, b. "To this day" - now for nearly 300 years without interruption; for Jonadab was already held in high esteem when Jehu ascended the throne, 883 b.c. (2Ki 10:15). Judah, on the contrary, does not listen to the commandments which his God unceasingly inculcates on him, but rather wanders after other gods, to serve them. On Jer 35:15 cf. Jer 25:4-5. אל־האדמה stands for על־האדמה , Jer 25:5. - In Jer 35:16, where the introductory כּי, imo, indicates a culmination, the idea is once more briefly expressed. Nägelsbach incorrectly renders כּי "because," and makes Jer 35:16 the protasis to Jer 35:17. "Such a protasis with because (quia), without any connection with what precedes, is contrary to the use of language" (Hitzig). On the threat of punishment in Jer 35:17, see Jer 11:11.

Verses 18-19

The declaration concerning the Rechabites is introduced by the formula, "And to the house of the Rechabites Jeremiah said;" thereby, too, it is shown that the statement does not form an integral portion of the preceding address, but was uttered by Jeremiah perhaps at the close of his transactions with them (Jer 35:11). But it is not given till now, in order to signify to the people of Judah that even fidelity to paternal commands has its own rewards, to make the threat uttered against Judah all the more impressive. On the promise Jer 35:19, cf. Jer 33:18. Since עמד  denotes the standing of a servant before his master, and in Jer 7:10 is used of the appearance of the people before the Lord in the temple, עמד לפני seems here also to express not merely the permanence of the family, but in addition, their continuance in the service of the Lord, without, of course, involving sacerdotal service; cf. on the other hand, Jer 33:18, where this service is more exactly described. The acknowledgment of the Lord on the part of the Rechabites is a necessary result of their connection with Israel.^[9]

Chap. 36

Verse 1

In the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, bidding him commit to writing all the addresses he had previously delivered, that Judah might, if it were possible, still regard the threatenings and return (Jer 36:1-3). In accordance with this command, he got all the words of the Lord written down in a book by his attendant Baruch, with the further instruction that this should be read on the fast-day in the temple to the people who came out of the country into Jerusalem (Jer 36:4-8). When, after this, in the ninth month of the fifth year of Jehoiakim, a fast was appointed, Baruch read the prophecies to the assembled people in the chamber of Gemariah in the temple. Michaiah the son of Gemariah mentioned the matter to the princes who were assembled in the royal palace; these then sent for Baruch with the roll, and made him read it to them. But they were so frightened by what was read to them that they deemed it necessary to inform the king regarding it (Jer 36:9-19). At their advice, the king had the roll brought and some of it read before him; but scarcely had some few columns been read, when he cut the roll into pieces and threw them into the pan of coals burning in the room, at the same time commanding that Baruch and Jeremiah should be brought to him; but God hid them (Jer 36:20-26). After this roll had been burnt, the Lord commanded the prophet to get all his words written on a new roll, and to predict an ignominious fate for King Jehoiakim; whereupon Jeremiah once more dictated his addresses to Baruch (Jer 36:27-32).
Since Jeremiah, according to Jer 36:3, Jer 36:6, Jer 36:7, is to get his addresses written down that Baruch may be able to read them publicly on the fast-day, now at hand, because he himself was prevented from getting to the temple, the intention of the divine command was not to make the prophet put down in writing and gather together all the addresses he had hitherto given, but the writing down is merely to serve as a means of once more presenting to the people the whole contents of his prophecies, in order to induce them, wherever it was possible, to return to the Lord. In the fourth year of Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar, after

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1621

vanquishing the Egyptians at the Euphrates, advanced against Judah, took Jerusalem, and made Jehoiakim tributary. In the same year, too, Jeremiah had delivered the prophecy regarding the giving up of Judah and all nations for seventy years into the power of the king of Babylon (Jer 25); ); this was before he had been bidden write down all his addresses. For, that he did not receive this command till towards the end of the fourth year, may be gathered with certainty from the fact that the public reading of the addresses, after they were written down, was to take place on the fast-day, which, according to Jer 36:9, was not held till the ninth month of the fifth year. The only doubtful point is, whether they were written down and read before or after the first capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. Most modern commentators take the former view; e.g., Hitzig says, briefly and decidedly, "According to Jer 36:29, the Chaldeans had not as yet appeared in the country." But this is not mentioned in Jer 36:29. The threatening in this verse, "The king of Babylon shall come and destroy this land, and exterminate men and beasts from it," does not prove that the king of Babylon had not yet come to Judah, but merely that the country had not yet been destroyed, and men and cattle exterminated from it. When Jerusalem was first taken, Nebuchadnezzar contented himself with subjecting Jehoiakim under his supreme authority and requiring the payment of tribute, as well as carrying away some of the vessels of the temple and some hostages. The devastation of Judah and the extirpation of men and beasts did not commence till the second subjugation of Jerusalem under Jehoiakim, and was completed when the city was utterly destroyed, in Zedekiah's time, on its third subjugation. The settlement of the question that has been raised depends on the determination of the object for which the special fast-day in the fifth year was appointed, whether for averting the threatened invasion by the Chaldeans, or as a memorial of the first capture of Jerusalem. This question we have already so far decided in the Commentary on Daniel, at Jer 1:1, where it is stated that the fast was held in remembrance of that day in the year when Jerusalem was taken for the first time by Nebuchadnezzar; we have also remarked in the same place, that Jehoiakim either appointed or permitted this special

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1622

fast "for the purpose of rousing the popular feeling against the Chaldeans, to whom they were in subjection, - to evoke in the people a religious enthusiasm in favour of resistance; for Jehoiakim keenly felt the subjugation by the Chaldeans, and from the first thought of revolt." However, every form of resistance to the king of Babylon could only issue in the ruin of Judah. Accordingly, Jeremiah made Baruch read his prophecies publicly to the people assembled in the temple on that day, "by way of counterpoise to the king's desire;" the prophet also bade him announce to the king that the king of Babylon would come, i.e., return, to destroy the land, and to root out of it both men and beasts. These circumstances give the first complete explanation of the terror of the princes when they listened to the reading of the book (Jer 36:16), as well as of the wrath of the king, exhibited by his cutting the book in pieces and throwing it into the fire: he saw that the addresses of the prophet were more calculated to damp those religious aspirations of the people on which he based his hopes, than to rouse the nation against continued submission to the Chaldeans. Not till now, too, when the object of the appointment of the fast-day was perceived, did the command given by God to the prophet to write down his prophecies appear in its proper light. Shortly before, and in the most earnest manner, Jeremiah had reminded the people of their opposition to the word of God preached by him for twenty-three years, and had announced to them, as a punishment, the seventy years' subjugation to the Chaldeans and the desolation of the country; yet this announcement of the fearful chastisement had made no deeper or more lasting impression on the people. Hence, so long as the threatened judgment was still in the distance, not much could be expected to result from the reading of his addresses in the temple on the fast-day, so that the command of God to do so should appear quite justified. But the matter took a considerably different from when Nebuchadnezzar had actually taken Jerusalem and Jehoiakim had submitted. The commencement of the judgments which had been threatened by God was the proper moment for laying before the hearts of the people, once more, the intense earnestness of the divine message, and for urging them to deeper penitence. Just at this point

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1623

the reading of the whole contents of the prophecies delivered by Jeremiah appears like a final attempt to preserve the people, on whom judgment has fallen, from complete destruction.

Verses 2-3

The word of the Lord to Jeremiah was to this effect: "Take thee a book-roll, and write on it (אליה for עליה) all the words that I have spoken unto thee concerning Israel and Judah, and concerning all the nations, from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah till this day. Jer 36:3. Perhaps the house of Judah will hear all the evil which I meditate doing to them, that they may return every one from his evil way, and that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin." ישׁמעוּ here means, to hear correctly and lay to heart; cf. Jer 26:3. Hitzig views the command as meaning, not that Jeremiah is now for the first time to write down his addresses (which would be an impossibility for the most faithful memory), but that he is merely to write them down together in one book, out of the several scattered leaves and scraps. Graf has already refuted this view, though more fully than was necessary. It is not a copying, word for word, of every separate address that is meant, but merely a writing down of the essential contents of all his oral discourses. This is quite clear, not merely from what is stated in Jer 36:3 as the object of this command, but also from the character of these collected addresses, as they are preserved to us. That the expression "all the words" is not to be understood in the most rigid sense, follows from the very fact that, when Jeremiah anew wrote down his prophecies, Jer 36:32, he further added "many similar words" to what had been contained in the first book-roll, which was burned by Jehoiakim. But Jeremiah might perhaps be able to retain in his memory the substance of all the addresses he had delivered during the twenty-three years, since all of them treated of the same subjects - reproof of prevailing sins, threat of punishment, and promises.

Verses 4-7

Jeremiah carries out the divine command by making Baruch write down on a book-roll all the words of the Lord, out of his mouth ('מפּי , i.e., at the dictation of Jeremiah); and since he himself is prevented from getting to the house of the Lord, he bids him read the words he had written down in the ears of the people in the temple on the fast-day, at the same time expressing the hope, Jer 36:7 : "Perhaps their supplication

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1624

will fall down before the Lord, and they will return each one from his wicked way; for great is the wrath and the anger which the Lord hath expressed concerning this people." Baruch, who is mentioned so early as Jer 32:12. as the attendant of the prophet, was, according to the passage now before us, his amanuensis, and executed his commissions. אני עצוּר, according to Jer 33:1 and Jer 39:15, might mean, "I am in prison;" but this does not accord with the request of the princes, Jer 36:19, that Jeremiah should hide himself. Moreover, עצוּר does not mean "seized, captus," but "stopped, restrained, hindered;" see on Neh 6:10. The cause of hindrance is not mentioned, as being away from the purpose of the narrative. "To read in the roll in the ears of the people," i.e., to read to the people out of the book. בּיום צום does not mean "on any fast-day whatever," but, "on the fast-day." The article is omitted because there was no need for defining the fast-day more exactly. The special fast-day mentioned in Jer 36:9 is intended. 'תּפּל תּחנּתם וגו, "their supplication will fall down before the Lord," i.e., reach unto God, as if it were laid before His feet. נפל is transferred from the posture of the suppliant - his falling down before God - to his supplication. Hence, in Hiphil, to make the supplication fall down before the Lord is equivalent to laying the request at His feet; Jer 38:26; Jer 42:9; Dan 9:18, Dan 9:20. If the supplication actually comes before God, it is also heard and finds success. This success is pointed out in 'וישׁבוּ וגו, "that they may repent." If man, in a repentant spirit, supplicates God for grace, God grants him power for conversion. But the return of the people from their wicked way is indispensable, because the wrath which God has expressed concerning it is great, i.e., because God has threatened a heavy judgment of wrath.

Verse 8

Baruch executes his commission.

Verses 9-19

Jer 36:9-19The reading of the book in the temple. - Jer 36:9. In the fifth year of Jehoiakim, in the ninth month, "they proclaimed a fast before the Lord - all the people in Jerusalem, and all the people who had come out of the cities of the Judah to Jerusalem." קתא צום, to call, declare, appoint a fast; cf. 1Ki 21:9, 1Ki 21:12; 2Ch 20:3. From the tenor of the words, the people who lived in Jerusalem and those who had come thither out of the country might seem to have called the

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1625

fast. But this is impossible; for the people from the cities of Judah evidently came to Jerusalem only in consequence of the fast being appointed. Hence Graf is of opinion that קתא צום seems here used in a general way of the keeping of such a fast. This view is not confirmed by any parallel instances. The expression is inexact, and the inexactness has arisen from the effort to attain greater conciseness of expression. The meaning is this: a fast was proclaimed, and all the people in Jerusalem and out of the cities of Judah came to worship the Lord in the temple. It remains doubtful with whom the appointment originated, - whether with the king, or with the high priest and the priesthood. The ninth month corresponds to our December, and consequently came round with the cold season; cf. Jer 36:22. The fast-day was a special one; for in the law only the day of atonement, in the seventh month, was prescribed as a fast-day. On the object of this measure, see supra, p. 316f.

Verse 10

On this day Baruch read the addresses of Jeremiah out of the book to the people who had come to the temple, in the "chamber of Gemariah, the son of Shaphan, the scribe, in the upper forecourt, at the entrance of the new gate of the house of the Lord." Gemariah the son of Shaphan was one of the king's private scribes, a secretary of state. For, according to Jer 36:12, he belonged to the princes, and was probably a brother of Ahikam the son of Shaphan, who had already shown himself, before this, a protector of the prophet (Jer 26:24). The chamber which he had in the temple was situated in the upper forecourt, at the entrance of the new gate, whose position we cannot exactly determine (see on Jer 26:10), but which led from the outer to the inner court of the priests, which rose higher than the others.

Verses 11-13

Micaiah, a son of Gemariah, was also listening to the reading; and he it was who brought the news into the palace. He made of the room, i.e., the office, of Elishama, the secretary of state, where the princes, viz., Elishama, Delaiah the son of Shemaiah, Elnathan the son of Achbor (cf. Jer 26:22), Gemariah the son of Shaphan, and Zedekiah the son of Hananiah, had just met for a consultation; and he mentioned to them what he had heard.

Verse 14

On this information the princes sent Jehudi (perhaps one of the under-officers of the secretary of state) to Baruch, to bring him, with the book

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1626

from which he had read. From the designation, "Jehudi son of Nethaniah, son of Shelemiah, son of Cushi," Hitzig and Graf conclude that the first and last are not proper names, but appellatives, "the Jew" and "the Cushite," and account for the use of them on the ground that, through the application of the law given in Deu 23:7-8 to Cushites as well as Egyptians, the ancestor was a Cushite, and only his great-grandson became a Jew, or Jewish citizen, and was called "Jehudi." But this view is opposed (1) by the fact that the names of the father and the grandfather are true proper names, and these, moreover, contain the name Jah (Jahveh), - hence are genuine proper names of Israelites; moreover, (2) even in olden times Jehudith occurs as a woman's name, Gen 26:34. According to this, Jehudi is a true proper name, and at the most, Cushi is but a surname of the great-grandfather, given him because of his descent from the Cushites. Further, the law, Deu 23:7, applies only to the posterity of the Edomites and Egyptians, that these should not be received into the congregation of the Lord till the third generation; this ordinance was based on grounds which did not permit of its application to other nations. These might be naturalized even in the first generation on undergoing circumcision, with the exception of Canaanites, Ammonites, and Moabites, who were not to be admitted into the Israelitish community even in the tenth generation, Deu 23:3.

Verses 15-16

When Baruch came, the princes, in token of friendly and respectful treatment, bade him sit down and read to them out of the book he had brought with him. Jer 36:16. But when they heard all the words read, "they were afraid one at another;" i.e., by looks, gestures, and words, they gave mutual expression of their fear, partly because of the contents of what had been read. Although they were generally acquainted with the sense and the spirit of Jeremiah's addresses, yet what had now been read made a powerful impression on them; for Baruch plainly had read, both to the people in the temple and to the princes, not the whole book, but only the main portions, containing the sternest denunciations of sin and the strongest threats of punishment. The statement, "he read in (out of) the book the words of Jeremiah" (Jer 36:10), does not mean that he read the whole book;

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1627

this would only have wearied the people and weakened the impression made. But they were partly also terrified, perhaps, by the boldness of a declaration which so decidedly opposed the desires and hopes of the king; for the thought of the event mentioned in Jer 26:20. would at once suggest to them the danger that might arise to the live of Jeremiah and Baruch from the despotic character of the king. They said therefore to Baruch, "We must tell the king all these things." For it was clear that the matter could not long remain concealed from the king, after the public reading in the temple. Hence they dared not, agreeably to their official relation to the king, hide from him what had taken place.

Verses 17-18

Meanwhile, in order to inform themselves more exactly regarding what had happened, they ask Baruch, "Tell us, how hast thou written all these words at his mouth?" Thereupon Baruch replied, "He used to call aloud these words to me," i.e., he used to dictate them to me by word of mouth, "and I wrote them in the book with ink." The imperfect expresses the repeated or continued doing of anything; hence יקרא here means to dictate, which requires considerable time. In the following circumstantial clause is found the participle ואני כתב, while I was writing; and so I myself was doing nothing else all the time than writing down what was dictated. Some commentators have found a stumbling-block in מפּיו in the question of the princes (Jer 36:17); the lxx and Ewald omit this word, inasmuch as Baruch does not explain till afterwards that he had written down the words from the mouth of Jeremiah. Others, like Venema, take מפּיו as a question = המפּיו. Both explanations are arbitrary and unnecessary. The princes knew quite well that the substance of the book was from the mouth of Jeremiah, i.e., contained his addresses; but Baruch, too, might have composed the book from the oral discourses of the prophet without being commissioned by him, without his knowledge also, and against his will. Accordingly, to attain certainty as to the share of the prophet in this matter, they ask him, and Baruch answers that Jeremiah had dictated it to him.

Verse 19

Thereupon the princes advised Baruch to hide himself and Jeremiah; for they know beforehand that Jehoiakim would put to death the witnesses of the truth.

Verse 20

Jer 36:20The reading of the book before the king. - Jer 36:20. The princes betook themselves to the king חצרה, into the inner fore-court (leaving the book-roll in the chamber of the secretary of state), and gave him an account of the matter. חצר is the inner court of the palace, in which the royal dwelling-apartments are situated. הפקיד, to entrust a thing or person to any one (Jer 40:7), hence to deposit, preserve, Isa 10:28.

Verses 21-22

Thereupon the king makes Jehudi fetch the book, and causes it to be read before himself and the assembled princes. עמד מעל, to stand over, since the one who is standing before his master, while the latter is sitting, overtops him; cf. Gen 18:8. The king was sitting, as is stated in Jer 36:22 by way of preparation for what follows, in the winter-house, i.e., in that portion of the palace which was erected for a winter residence, in the ninth month, i.e., during the winter, and the pot of coals was burning before him. The rooms of eastern houses have no stoves, but in the middle of the floor there is a depression, in which is placed a sort of basin with burning coals, for the purpose of heating the apartment: cf. Keil's Bibl. Archäol. ii. §95, S. 7. For the expression ואת־האח, "and as for the fire-pot, it was burning before him," cf. Ewald, §277, d.

Verse 23

Now, "when Jehudi had read three or four columns, he the king cut it the book-roll with a pen-knife and threw the pieces into the fire, in the pot of coals, till the whole roll was consumed on the fire in the pot of coals." דּלתות, properly "doors," are not leaves, but divisions of a book. The opinion of Hitzig, that leaves are to be understood, and that the Megillah, therefore, was not a roll, properly speaking, but a book with leaves, cannot be substantiated. In the synagogues, the Jews even at the present day, according to the ancient custom, use real rolls, which are rolled up on a stick. On these the Scripture text is written, though not in lines which occupy the whole breadth of the roll; the whole space is divided into parts. "Scribebatur," says Buxtorf in Institutione epistolari Hebr. p. 4, "volumen lineis, non per longitudinem totius chartae aut pergamenti deductis, sed in plures areas divisis, quomodo sunt latera paginarum in libris complicatis. Istae propterea voce metaphoricâ vocanturדּלתותjanuae valvae, quod figuram januae referent." The subject of יקרעה is not Jehudi, as Hitzig thinks, but the

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1629

king, and the word does not signify "he cut it out," but "he cut it in pieces" (the suffix refers to המּגלּה). We are not, with many expositors, to view the conduct of the king in such a way as to think that, whenever Jehudi had read some portions, he cut these off and threw them into the fire, so that the book was, with these interruptions, read through to the end, and at the same time gradually destroyed. Such conduct Graf justly characterizes as trifling and silly, and not in harmony with the anger of a king having a violent disposition. But we cannot see how the imperfect יקרע (in Nägelsbach's opinion) proves that Jehudi read the whole, when the text states that only three or four columns were read. The meaning, peculiar to the imperfect, of the continuation or repetition of an act, is fully made out by supposing that the king cut down the roll bit by bit, and threw the pieces into the fire one after the other. Neither does the expression עד־תּם כּל־המּגלּה imply that the whole book was read; for תּמם does not denote the completion of the reading, but the completion of the burning: hence the words are to be translated, "till the whole roll had completely got upon the fire," i.e., was completely burnt; cf. תּם אל־, Gen 47:18. The inf. absol. והשׁלך is a continuation of the finite verb, as frequently occurs, e.g., in Jer 14:5; Jer 32:44.

Verses 24-25

In order to characterize the conduct of the king, the writer remarks, "Yet the king and his servants who heard all these words (which Jehudi had read) were not afraid, nor did they rend their garments (in token of deep sorrow); and even when Elnathan, Delaiah, and Gemariah addressed the king, requesting him not to burn the roll, he did not listen to them." So hardened was the king, that he and his servants neither were terrified by the threatenings of the prophet, nor felt deep sorrow, as Josiah did in a similar case (2Ki 22:11, cf. 1Ki 21:27), nor did they listen to the earnest representations of the princes. עבדיו are the court-attendants of the king in contrast with the princes, who, according to Jer 36:16, had been alarmed by what they heard read, and wished, by entreaties, to keep the king from the commission of such a wicked act as the destruction of the book. Ewald, on the contrary, has identified עבדיו with the princes, and thereby marred the whole account, while he reproaches the princes with "acting as the wretched instruments

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1630

of what they knew to be the sentiments prevailing at court."

Verse 26

Not content with destroying the book, Jehoiakim also wished to get Baruch and Jeremiah out of the way; for he ordered the king's son Jerahmeël and two other men to go for Baruch the scribe and Jeremiah the prophet; "but the Lord hid them," i.e., graciously kept them out of the sight of the spies. בּן־המּלך is not the son of Jehoiakim, - if so, we would find simply את־בּנו; but a royal prince is meant, cf. Jer 38:6; 1Ki 22:26; 2Ki 11:1-2; Zep 1:8.The punishment which is to come on Jehoiakim for his wicked act. - Jer 36:27. After the burning of the roll by the king, Jeremiah received from the Lord the command to get all that had been on the former roll written on another, and to announce the following to Jehoiakim the king: Jer 36:29. "Thus saith Jahveh: Thou hast burned this roll, whilst thou sayest, Why hast thou written thereon, The king of Babylon shall surely come and destroy this land, and root out man and beast from it? Jer 36:30. Therefore thus saith Jahveh regarding Jehoiakim the king of Judah: He shall not have one who sits upon the throne of David, and his corpse shall be cast forth to the heat by day and to the frost by night. Jer 36:31. And I shall punish him, his servants, and his seed for their iniquity, and bring on them and on all the inhabitants of Judah and all the men of Judah all the evil which I have spoken to them; but they did not hear." On the meaning of Jer 36:29 see p. 316, supra. The threatening expressed in Jer 36:30. is really only a repetition of what is given in Jer 22:18-19, and has already been explained there. "There shall not be to him one who sits upon the throne of David," i.e., he is not to have a son that shall occupy the throne of David after him. This does not contradict the fact that, after his death, his son Jehoiachin ascended the throne. For this ascension could not be called a sitting on the throne, a reign, inasmuch as he was immediately besieged in Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and compelled to surrender after three months, then go into exile to Babylon. On Jer 36:31 cf. Jer 35:17; Jer 19:15.

Verses 22-32

Thereupon Jeremiah made his attendant Baruch write all the words of the former roll on a new one, "out of his mouth," i.e., at his dictation; and to these he added many other words like them. כּהמּה, i.e.,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1631

of like import with those on the previous roll. Hence we perceive that on the first roll there were written down not all the several addresses fully, but only the most important parts of his oral announcements.

Chap. 37

Verses 1-5

The account of what befell Jeremiah and what he did during the last siege of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, until the taking of the city, is introduced, Jer 37:1 and Jer 37:2, with the general remark that Zedekiah - whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had made king in the land of Judah in place of Coniah (on which name see on Jer 22:24) - when he became king, did not listen to the words of the Lord through Jeremiah, neither himself, nor his servants (officers), nor the people of the land (the population of Judah). Then follows, Jer 37:3-10, a declaration of the prophet regarding the issue of the siege, which he sent to the king by the messengers who were to beseech him for his intercession with the Lord. Jer 37:3-5. The occasion of this declaration was the following: Zedekiah sent to Jeremiah two of his chief officers, Jehucal the son of Shelemiah (see on Jer 38:1), and Zephaniah the son of Maaseiah, the priest (see Jer 21:1 and Jer 29:25), with this charge: "Pray now for us to Jahveh our God." This message was sent to Jeremiah while he still went in and out among the people, and had not yet been put in prison (כּליא, Jer 37:4 and Jer 52:31, an unusual form for כּלא, Jer 37:15 and Jer 37:18, for which the Qeri would have us in both instances read כּלוּא); the army of Pharaoh (Hophra, Jer 44:30), too, had marched out of Egypt to oppose the Chaldeans; and the latter, when they heard the report of them (שׁמעם, the news of their approach), had withdrawn from Jerusalem (עלה מעל, see on Jer 21:2), viz., in order to repulse the Egyptians. Both of these circumstances are mentioned for the purpose of giving a clear view of the state of things: (a) Jeremiah's freedom to go in and out,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1632

not to prepare us for his imprisonment afterwards, but to explain the reason why the king sent two chief officers of the realm to him, whereas, after his imprisonment, he caused him to be brought (cf. Jer 37:17 with Jer 38:14); and (b) the approach of the Egyptians joined with the raising of the siege, because this event seemed to afford some hope that the city would be saved. - This occurrence, consequently, falls within a later period than that mentioned in Jer 21:1-14.

Verses 6-10

Then came the word of the Lord to this effect: Jer 37:7. "Thus saith Jahveh, the God of Israel: Thus shall ye say to the king of Judah who hath sent you to me to ask at me, Behold, the army of Pharaoh, which marched out to your help, will return to Egypt, their own land. Jer 37:8. And the Chaldeans shall return and fight against this city, and take it, and burn it with fire. Jer 37:9. Thus saith Jahveh: Do not deceive yourselves by thinking, The Chaldeans will quite withdraw from us; for they will not withdraw. Jer 37:10. For, even though he had beaten the whole army of the Chaldeans who are fighting with you, and there remained of them only some who had been pierced through and through, yet they would rise up, every man in his tent, and burn this city with fire." In order to cut off every hope, the prophet announces that the Egyptians will bring no help, but withdraw to their own land before the Chaldeans who went out to meet them, without having accomplished their object; but then the Chaldeans will return, continue the siege, take the city and burn it. To assure them of this, he adds: "Ye must not deceive yourselves with the vain hope that the Chaldeans may possibly be defeated and driven back by the Egyptians. The destruction of Jerusalem is so certain that, even supposing you were actually to defeat and repulse the Chaldeans, and only some few grievously wounded ones remained in the tents, these would rise up and burn the city." In הלוך ילכוּ the inf. abs. is to be observed, as strengthening the idea contained in the verb: "to depart wholly or completely;" הלך is here to "depart, withdraw." אנשׁים in contrast with חיל are separate individuals. מדקּר, pierced through by sword or lance, i.e., grievously, mortally wounded.

Verses 11-12

Jer 37:11-12The imprisonment of Jeremiah. - During the time when the Chaldeans, on account of the advancing army of pharaoh,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1633

had withdrawn from Jerusalem and raised the siege, "Jeremiah went out of the city to go to the land of Benjamin, in order to bring thence his portion among the people." והיה, in accordance with later usage, for ויהי, as in Jer 3:9; cf. Ewald, §345, b. לחלק  is explained in various ways. לחלק for להחליק can scarcely have any other meaning than to share, receive a share; and in connection with משּׁם, "to receive a portion thence," not, to receive an inheritance (Syr., Chald., Vulg.), for משּׁם does not suit this meaning. The lxx render τοῦ ἀγοράσαι ἐκεῖθεν, which Theodoret explains by πρίασθαι ἄρτους. All other explanations have still less in their favour. We must connect בּתוך העם with 'ללכת וגו, since it is unsuitable for לחלק משּׁם.

Verse 13

When he was entering the gate of Benjamin, where Jeriah the son of Shelemiah kept watch, the latter seized him, saying, "Thou desirest to go over to the Chaldeans" (נפל אל־, see on Jer 21:9). The gate of Benjamin (Jer 38:7; Jer 14:10) was the north gate of the city, through which ran the road to Benjamin and Ephraim; hence it was also called the gate of Ephraim, 2Ki 14:13; Neh 8:16. בּעל, "holder of the oversight," he who kept the watch, or commander of the watch at the gate. "The accusation was founded on the well-known views and opinions of Jeremiah (Jer 21:9); but it was mere sophistry, for the simple reason that the Chaldeans were no longer lying before the city" (Hitzig).

Verses 14-15

Jeremiah replied: "A lie [= not true; cf. 2Ki 9:12]; I am not going over to the Chaldeans. But he gave no heed to him; so Jeriah seized Jeremiah, and brought him to the princes. Jer 37:15. And the princes were angry against Jeremiah, and smote him, and put him in prison, in the house of Jonathan the scribe; for they had made it the prison," - probably because it contained apartments suitable for the purpose. From Jer 37:16 we perceive that they were subterranean prisons and vaults into which the prisoners were thrust; and from v. 28 and Jer 38:26, it is clear that Jeremiah was in a confinement much more severe and dangerous to his life. There he sat many days, i.e., a pretty long time.

Verses 16-21

Examination of the prophet by the king, and alleviation of his confinement. - Jer 37:16. "When Jeremiah had got into the dungeon and into the vaults, and had sat there

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1634

many days, then Zedekiah the king sent and fetched him, and questioned him in his own house (palace) secretly," etc. Jer 37:16 is by most interpreters joined with the foregoing, but the words כּי בּא do not properly permit of this. For if we take the verse as a further confirmation of ויּקצפוּ השׂרים, "the princes vented their wrath on Jeremiah, beat him," etc., "for Jeremiah came...," then it must be acknowledged that the account would be very long and lumbering. כּי בּא is too widely separated from יקצפוּ. But the passages, 1Sa 2:21, where כּי פּקד is supposed to stand for ויּפקד, and Isa 39:1, where ויּשׁמע is thought to have arisen out of כּי, 2Ki 20:12, are not very strong proofs, since there, as here, no error in writing is marked. The Vulgate has itaque ingressus; many therefore would change כּי into כּן; but this also is quite arbitrary. Accordingly, with Rosenmüller, we connect Jer 37:16 with the following, and take כּי as a temporal particle; in this, the most we miss is ו copulative, or ויהי. In the preceding sentence the prison of the prophet is somewhat minutely described, in order to prepare us for the request that follows in Jer 37:20. Jeremiah was in a בּית־בּור, "house of a pit," cf. Exo 12:29, i.e., a subterranean prison, and in החניּות. This word only occurs here; but in the kindred dialects it means vaults, stalls, shops; hence it possibly signifies here subterranean prison-cells, so that אל־החניּות more exactly determines what בּית־הבּור is. This meaning of the word is, at any rate, more certain than that given by Eb. Scheid in Rosenmüller, who renders חניות by flexa, curvata; then, supplying ligna, he thinks of the stocks to which the prisoners were fastened. - The king questioned him בּסּתר, "in secret," namely, through fear of his ministers and court-officers, who were prejudiced against the prophet, perhaps also in the hope of receiving in a private interview a message from God of more favourable import. To the question of the king, "Is there any word from Jahveh?" Jeremiah replies in the affirmative; but the word of God is this, "Thou shalt be given into the hand of the king of Babylon," just as Jeremiah had previously announced to him; cf. Jer 32:4; Jer 34:3. - Jeremiah took this opportunity of complaining

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1635

about his imprisonment, saying, Jer 37:18, "In what have I sinned against thee, or against thy servants, or against this people, that ye have put me in prison? Jer 37:19. And where are your prophets, who prophesied to you, The king of Babylon shall not come against you, nor against this land?" Jeremiah appeals to his perfect innocence (Jer 37:18), and to the confirmation of his prediction by its event. The interview with the king took place when the Chaldeans, after driving the Egyptians out of the country, had recommenced the siege of Jerusalem, and, as is evident from Jer 37:21, were pressing the city very hard. The Kethib איו is to be read איּו, formed from איּה with the suffix וׁ; the idea of the suffix has gradually become obscured, so that it stands here before a noun in the plural. The Qeri requires איּה. The question, Where are your prophets? means, Let these prophets come forward and vindicate their lying prophecies. Not what these men had prophesied, but what Jeremiah had declared had come to pass; his imprisonment, accordingly, was unjust. - Besides thus appealing to his innocence, Jeremiah, Jer 37:20, entreats the king, "Let my supplication come before thee, and do not send me back into the house of Jonathan the scribe, that I may not die there." For 'תּפּל־נא ת see on Jer 36:7. The king granted this request. "He commanded, and they put Jeremiah into the court of the watch [of the royal palace, see on Jer 32:2], and gave him a loaf of bread daily out of the bakers' street, till all the bread in the city was consumed;" cf. Jer 52:6. The king did not give him his liberty, because Jeremiah held to his views, that were so distasteful to the king (see on Jer 32:3). "So Jeremiah remained in the court of the guard."   In this chapter two events are mentioned which took place in the last period of the siege of Jerusalem, shortly before the capture of the city by the Chaldeans. According to Jer 38:4, the number of fighting men had now very much decreased; and according to Jer 38:19, the number of deserters to the Chaldeans had become large. Moreover, according to Jer 38:9, famine had already begun to prevail; this hastened the fall of the city.

Chap. 38

Verses 1-4

Jeremiah is cast into a miry pit, but drawn out again by Ebedmelech the Cushite. Jer 38:1-6. Being confined in the court of the guard attached to the royal palace, Jeremiah had opportunities of conversing with the soldiers stationed there and the people of Judah who came thither (cf. Jer 38:1 with Jer 32:8, Jer 32:12), and of declaring, in opposition to them, his conviction (which he had indeed expressed from the beginning of the siege) that all resistance to the Chaldeans would be fruitless, and only bring destruction (cf. Jer 21:9.). On this account, the princes who were of a hostile disposition towards him were so embittered, that they resolved on his death, and obtain from the king permission to cast him into a deep pit with mire at the bottom. In v. 1 four of these princes are named, two of whom, Jucal the son of Shelemiah, and Pashur the son of Malchiah, are known, from Jer 37:3 and Jer 21:1, as confidants of the king; the other two, Shephatiah the son of Mattan, and Gedaliah the son of Pashur, are not mentioned elsewhere. Gedaliah was probably a son of the Pashur who had once put Jeremiah in the stocks (Jer 20:1-2). The words of the prophet, Jer 38:2, Jer 38:3, are substantially the same as he had already uttered at the beginning of the siege, Jer 21:9 (יחיה as in Jer 21:9). Jer 38:4. The princes said to the king, "Let this man, we beseech thee, be put to death for the construction, see on Jer 35:14; for therefore i.e., because no one puts him out of existence - על־כּן as in Jer 29:28 he weakens the hands of the men of war who remain in this city, and the hands of all the people, by speaking words like these to them; for this man does not seek the welfare of this people, but their ill." מרפּא for מרפּא, to cause the hands of any one to be relaxed, i.e., to make him dispirited; cf. Ezr 4:4; Isa 35:3. דּרשׁ with ל htiw , as Job 10:6; Deu 12:30; 1Ch 22:19, etc., elsewhere with the accusatival את; cf. Jer 29:7 et passim. On this point cf. Jer 29:7. The allegation which the princes made against Jeremiah was possibly correct. The constancy with which Jeremiah declared that resistance was useless, since, in accordance with the divine decree, Jerusalem was to be taken and burnt by the Chaldeans, could not but make the soldiers and the people unwilling any longer to sacrifice their lives in defending the city. Nevertheless the complaint was unjust, because Jeremiah was not expressing

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1637

his own personal opinion, but was declaring the word of the Lord, and that, too, not from any want of patriotism or through personal cowardice, but in the conviction, derived from the divine revelation, that it was only by voluntary submission that the fate of the besieged could be mitigated; hence he acted from a deep feeling of love to the people, and in order to avert complete destruction from them. The courage of the people which he sought to weaken was not a heroic courage founded on genuine trust in God, but carnal obstinacy, which could not but lead to ruin.

Verse 5

Jer 38:5The king said, "Behold, he is in your hand, for the king can do nothing alongside of you." This reply indicates not merely the weakness and powerlessness of the king against his princes, but also his inward aversion to the testimony of the man of God. "That he would like to save him, just as he afterwards does (Jer 38:10)," is not implied in what he says, with which he delivers up the prophet to the spite of his enemies. Though the princes had at once put Jeremiah to death, the king would not even have been able to reproach them. The want of courage vigorously to oppose the demand of the princes did not spring from any kindly feeling towards the prophet, but partly from moral weakness of character, partly from inward repugnance to the word of God proclaimed by Jeremiah. On the construction אין וּיכל instead of the participle from יכול, which does not occur, cf. Ewald, §321, a. אתכם is certainly in form an accusative; but it cannot be such, since דּבר follows as the accusative: it is therefore either to be pointed אתּכם or to be considered as standing for it, just as אותך often occurs for אתּך, "with," i.e., "along with you."

Verse 6

The princes (שׂרים) now cast Jeremiah into the pit of the king's son (בּן־מלך, see on Jer 36:26) Malchiah, which was in the court of the prison, letting him down with ropes into the pit, in which there was no water, but mud; into this Jeremiah sank. The act is first mentioned in a general way in the words, "they cast him into the pit;" then the mode of proceeding is particularized in the words, "and they let him down," etc. On the expression הבּור מלכּיּהוּ, "the pit of Malchiah," cf. Ewald, §290, d: the article stands here before the nomen regens, because the nomen rectum, from being a proper name, cannot take it; and yet the pit must be pointed out as

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1638

one well known and definite. That it was very deep, and that Jeremiah must have perished in it if he were not soon taken out again, is evident from the very fact that they were obliged to use ropes in letting him down, and still more so from the trouble caused in pulling him out (Jer 38:10-12). That the princes did not at once put the prophet to death with the sword was not owing to any feeling of respect for the king, because the latter had not pronounced sentence of death on him, but because they sought to put the prophet to a final death, and yet at the same time wished to silence the voice of conscience with the excuse that they had not shed his blood.

Verses 7-9

The deliverance of Jeremiah. Ebedmelech the Cushite, a eunuch, heard of what had happened to Jeremiah. אישׁ סריס .haimer signifies a eunuch: the אישׁ shows that סריס is here to be taken in its proper meaning, not in the metaphorical sense of an officer of the court. Since the king had many wives (Jer 38:22.), the presence of a eunuch at the court, as overseer of the harem, cannot seem strange. The law of Moses, indeed, prohibited castration (Deu 23:2); but the man was a foreigner, and had been taken by the king into his service as one castrated. עבד מלך is a proper name (otherwise it must have been written המּלך); the name is a genuine Hebrew one, and probably may have been assumed when the man entered the service of Zedekiah. - On hearing of what had occurred, the Ethiopian went to the king, who was sitting in the gate of Benjamin, on the north wall of the city, which was probably the point most threatened by the besiegers, and said to him, Jer 38:9, "My lord, O king, these men have acted wickedly in all that they have done to Jeremiah the prophet, whom they have cast into the pit; and he is dying of hunger on the spot, for there is no more bread in the city." הרעוּ את־א, lit.,: "they have done wickedly what they have done." ויּמת cannot be translated, "and he died on the spot," for Ebedmelech wishes to save him before he dies of hunger. But neither does it stand for וימת, "so that he must die." The imperfect with Vav consecutive expresses the consequence of a preceding act, and usually stands in the narrative as a historic tense; but it may also declare what necessarily follows or will follow from what precedes; cf. Ewald, §342, a. Thus ויּמת stands here in the sense, "and so he is

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1639

dying," i.e., "he must die of hunger." תּחתּיו, "on his spot," i.e., on the place where he is; cf. 2Sa 2:23. The reason, "for there is no longer any bread (הלחם with the article, the necessary bread) in the city," is not to be taken in the exact sense of the words, but merely expresses the greatest deficiency in provisions. As long as Jeremiah was in the court of the prison, he received, like the officers of the court, at the king's order, his ration of bread every day (Jer 37:21). But after he had been cast into the pit, that royal ordinance no longer applied to him, so that he was given over to the tender mercies of others, from whom, in the prevailing scarcity of bread, he had not much to hope for.

Verse 10

Jer 38:10Then the king commanded the Ethiopian, "Take hence thirty men in thine hand, and bring up Jeremiah out of the pit before he dies." בידך, "in thine hand," i.e., under your direction; cf. Num 31:49. The number thirty has been found too great; and Ewald, Hitzig, and Graf would read שׁלשׁה, because the syntax requires the singular אישׁ after שׁלשׁים, and because at that time, when the fighting men had already decreased in number (Jer 38:4), thirty men could not be sent away from a post in danger without difficulty. These two arguments are quite invalid. The syntax does not demand אישׁ; for with the tens (20-90) the noun frequently follows in the plural as well as in the singular, if the number precede; cf. 2Sa 3:20; 2Ki 2:16, etc.; see also Gesenius' Grammar, §120, 2. The other argument is based on arbitrary hypotheses; for the passage neither speaks of fighting men, nor states that they would be taken from a post in danger. Ebedmelech was to take thirty men, not because they would all be required for drawing out the prophet, but for making surer work in effecting the deliverance of the prophet, against all possible attempts on the part of the princes or of the populace to prevent them.

Verses 11-13

Jer 38:11-13Ebedmelech took the men at his hand, went into the king's house under the treasury, and took thence rags of torn and of worn-out garments, and let them down on ropes to Jeremiah into the pit, and said to him, "Put, I pray thee, the rages of the torn and cast-off clothes under thine arm-pits under the ropes." Jeremiah did so, and then they drew him out of the pit by the ropes. תּחת is a room under the treasury. בּלוי, in Jer 38:12 בּלואים, from בּלה,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1640

to be worn away (of clothes), are rags. סחבות (from סחב, to drag, drag about, tear to pieces) are torn pieces of clothing. מלחים, worn-out garments, from מלח, in Niphal, Isa 51:6, to vanish, dissolve away. The article at הסּחבות is expunged from the Qeri for sake of uniformity, because it is not found with מלחים; but it may as well be allowed to stand as be removed. אצּילות ידים, properly the roots of the hands, are not the knuckles of the hand, but the shoulders of the arms. מתּחת לחבלים, under the ropes; i.e., the rags were to serve as pads to the ropes which were to be placed under the arm-pits, to prevent the ropes from cutting the flesh. When Jeremiah had been drawn out in this way from the deep pit of mire, he remained in the court of the prison.

Verses 14-16

Jer 38:14-16Conversation between the king and the prophet. - Jer 38:14. King Zedekiah was desirous of once more hearing a message of God from the prophet, and for this object had him brought into the third entrance in the house of the Lord. Nothing further is known about the situation and the nature of this entrance; possibly it led from the palace to the temple, and seems to have been an enclosed space, for the king could carry on a private conversation there with the prophet. The king said to him, "I ask you about a matter, do not conceal anything from me." He meant a message from God regarding the final issue of the siege, cf. Jer 37:7. Jeremiah, knowing the aversion of the king to the truth, replies, Jer 38:15 : "If I tell thee [sc. the word of the Lord], wilt thou not assuredly kill me? And if I were to give thee advice, thou wouldst not listen to me." Jer 38:16. Then the king sware to him secretly, "As Jahveh liveth, who hath made us this soul, I shall certainly not kill thee, nor deliver thee into the hand of these men who seek thy life." את אשׁר, as in Jer 27:8, properly means, "with regard to Him who has created us." The Qeri expunges את. "These men" are the princes mentioned in Jer 38:1.

Verses 17-18

Jer 38:17-18After this solemn asseveration of the king, Jeremiah said to him, "Thus saith Jahveh, the God of hosts, the God of Israel: If thou wilt assuredly go out to the princes of the king of Babylon  [i.e., wilt surrender thyself to them, cf. 2Ki 18:31; 2Ki 24:12], then thy soul shall live, and this city shall not be burned with fire, and thou and thy house shall live. But if thou dost

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1641

not go out to the princes of the king of Babylon, then this city will be given into the hand of the Chaldeans, and they shall burn it with fire, and thou shalt not escape out of their hand." The word of God is the same that Jeremiah had already repeatedly announced to the king, cf. Jer 34:2-5; Jer 32:4; Jer 21:4-10. The princes (chiefs, generals) of the king of Babylon are named, because they commanded the besieging army (Jer 39:3, Jer 39:13); Nebuchadnezzar himself had his headquarters at Riblah, Jer 39:5.

Verses 19-23

Against the advice that he should save his life by surrendering to the Chaldeans, Zedekiah suggests the consideration, "I am afraid of the Jews, who have deserted [נפל אל as in Jer 37:13] to the Chaldeans, lest they give me into their hands and maltreat me." התעלּל בּ, illudere alicui, to abuse any one by mockery or ill-treatment; cf. Num 22:29; 1Ch 10:4, etc. Jeremiah replies, Jer 38:20., "They will not give thee up. Yet, pray, listen to the voice of Jahveh, in that which I say to thee, that it may be well with thee, and that thy soul may live. Jer 38:21. But if thou dost refuse to go out i.e., to surrender thyself to the Chaldeans, this is the word which the Lord hath shown me has revealed to me: Jer 38:22. Behold, all the women that are left in the house of the king of Judah shall be brought out to the princes of the king of Babylon, and those [women] shall say, Thy friends have misled thee and have overcome thee; thy feet are sunk in the mud, they have turned away back. Jer 38:23. And all thy wives and thy children shall they bring out to the Chaldeans, and thou shalt not escape out of their hand; for thou shalt be seized by the hand of the king of Babylon, and thou shalt burn this city with fire." - After Jeremiah had once more assured the king that he would save his life by voluntary surrender, he announces to him that, on the other alternative, instead of his becoming the sport of the deserters, the women of his harem would be insulted. The women who remain in the king's house, as distinguished from "thy wives" (Jer 38:23), are the women of the royal harem, the wives of former kings, who remain in the harem as the concubines of the reigning king. These are to be brought out to the generals of the Chaldean king, and to sing a satire on him, to this effect: "Thy friends have misled thee, and overpowered thee," etc. The first sentence of this

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1642

song is from Oba 1:7, where השּׁיאוּך ere stands instead of הסּיתוּך. The friends (אנשׁי שׁלמך, cf. Jer 20:10) are his great men and his false prophets. Through their counsels, these have led him astray, and brought him into a bog, in which his feet stick fast, and then they have gone back; i.e., instead of helping him out, they have deserted him, leaving him sticking in the bog. The expression is figurative, and the meaning of the figure is plain (רגלך is plural). בּץ, ἁπ λεγ.., is equivalent to בּצּה, a bog, Job 8:11. Moreover, the wives and children of Zedekiah are to fall into the hand of the Chaldeans. מוצאים, the participle, is used instead of the finite tense to express the notion of indefinite personality: "they bring them out." תּתּפשׂ בּיד ".tuo meht gnirb , properly, "to be seized in the hand," is a pregnant construction for, "to fall into the hand and be held fast by it." "Thou shalt burn this city," i.e., bring the blame of burning it upon thyself. Ewald, Hitzig, and Graf, following the lxx, Syr., and Chald., would change תּשׂרף into תּשּׂרף, but needlessly.

Verses 24-26

From the king's weakness of character, and his dependence on his evil counsellors, neither could this interview have any result. Partly from want of firmness, but chiefly from fear of the reproaches of his princes, he did not venture to surrender himself and the city to the Chaldeans. Hence he did not wish that his interview with the prophet should be known, partly for the purpose of sparing himself reproaches from the princes, partly also, perhaps, not to expose the prophet to further persecutions on the part of the great men. Accordingly, he dismissed Jeremiah with this instruction: "Let no man know of these words, lest thou die." But if the princes should learn that the king had been speaking with him, and asked him, "Tell us, now, what thou hast said to the king, do not hide it from us, and we will not kill thee; and what did the king say to thee?" then he was to say to them, "I presented my supplication before the king, that he would not send me back to the house of Jonathan, to die there." As to the house of Jonathan, see on Jer 37:15. On מפּיל תּחנּתי cf. Jer 36:7; Jer 37:20.

Verses 27-28

What the king had supposed actually occurred, and Jeremiah gave the princes, who asked about the conversation, the reply that the king had prepared for him. יחרשׁוּ ממּנּוּ .mih rof deraperp, they went away in silence from him, and left him in peace; cf. 1Sa 7:8. כּי לא נשׁמע , for

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1643

the matter, the real subject of the conversation did not become known. So Jeremiah remained in the court of the prison till the day of the capture of Jerusalem. - The last sentence of Jer 38:28 belongs to the following chapter, and forms the introductory sentence of the passage whose conclusion follows in Jer 39:3.

Chap. 39

Verses 1-3

In Jer 39:1-14 the events which took place at the taking of Jerusalem are summarily related, for the purpose of showing how the announcements of Jeremiah the prophet have been fulfilled.^[10]

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1644

Jer 39:1-3"And it came to pass, when Jerusalem had been taken (in the ninth year of Zedekiah the king of Judah, in the tenth month, Nebuchadrezzar and all his army had come against Jerusalem and besieged it; in the eleventh year of Zedekiah, in the fourth month, on the ninth of the month, was the city broken into), then came all the princes of the king of Babylon and sat down at the middle gate, - Nergal-sharezer, Samgar-nebo, Sarsechim, chief chamberlain, Nergal-sharezer, chief magician, and all the rest of the princes of the king of Babylon." These three verses, to which the last clause of Jer 38:28 belongs, form one period, broken up by a pretty long piece inserted in it, on the beginning and duration of the siege of Jerusalem; so that, after the introductory clause והיה כּאשׁר( = ויהי as in Jer 37:11), Jer 38:28, the conclusion does not come till the word ויּבאוּ, Jer 39:3. In the parenthesis, the length of the siege, as stated, substantially agrees with Jer 52:4-7 and 2Ki 25:1-4, only that in these passages

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1645

the time when the siege began is further determined by the mention of the day of the month, לחדשׁ be בּעשׂור, which words are omitted here. The siege, then, lasted eighteen months, all but one day. After the besiegers had penetrated into the city through the breaches made in the wall, the princes, i.e., the chief generals, took up their position at "the gate of the midst." ישׁבוּ, "they sat down," i.e., took up a position, fixed their quarters. "The gate of the midst," which is mentioned only in this passage, is supposed, and perhaps rightly, to have been a gate in the wall which divided the city of Zion from the lower city; from this point, the two portions of the city, the upper and the lower city, could most easily be commanded.
With regard to the names of the Babylonian princes, it is remarkable (1) that the name Nergal-sharezer occurs twice, the first time without any designation, the second time with the official title of chief magician; (2) that the name Samgar-nebo has the name of God (Nebo or Nebu) in the second half, whereas in all other compounds of this kind that are known to us, Nebu forms the first portion of the name, as in Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuzaradan, Nebushasban (Jer 39:13), Naboned, Nabonassar, Nabopolassar, etc.; (3) from this name, too, is omitted the title of office, while we find one with the following name. Moreover (4) in Jer 39:13, where the Babylonian grandees are again spoken of, instead of the four names, only three are given, but every one of them with a title of office; and only the third of these, Nergal-sharezer, the chief magician, is identical with the one who is named last in Jer 39:3; while Nebushasban is mentioned instead of the Sarsechim of Jer 39:3 as רב־סריס, chief of the eunuchs (high chamberlain); and in place of Nergal-sharezer, Samgar-nebo, we find Nebuzaradan as the commander of the body-guards (רב טבּחים). On these four grounds, Hitzig infers that Jer 39:3, in the passage before us, has been corrupted, and that it contained originally only the names of three persons, with their official titles. Moreover, he supposes that סמגּר is formed from the Persian jâm and the derivation-syllable kr, Pers. war, and means "he who has or holds the cup," the cup-bearer; thus corresponding to רב שׁקה ot gnidnop, Rab-shakeh, "chief cup-bearer," 2Ki 18:17; Isa 36:2. He also considers שׂרסכים a Hebraizing form of רב סריס; סכה

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1646

or שׂכה, "to cut," by transposition from חצה, Arab. chtṣy, from which comes chatṣiyun, "a eunuch," = סכי, plur. סכים; hence שׂרסכים = רב סריס, of which the former has been a marginal gloss, afterwards received into the text. This complicated combination, however, by which Hitzig certainly makes out two official titles, though he retains no more than the divine name Nebu as that of Rabsaris, is founded upon two very hazardous conjectures. Nor do these conjectures gain much support from the renewal of the attempt, made about fifty years since by the late P. von Bohlen, to explain from the Neo-Persian the names of persons and titles occurring in the Assyrian and Old-Babylonian languages, an attempt which has long since been looked upon as scientifically unwarranted. Strange as it may seem that the two persons first named are not further specified by the addition of an official title, yet the supposition that the persons named in Isa 36:3 are identical with those mentioned in Isa 36:13 is erroneous, since it stands in contradiction with Jer 52:12, which even Hitzig recognises as historically reliable. According to Jer 52:12, Nebuzaradan, who is the first mentioned in Jer 39:13, was not present at the taking of Jerusalem, and did not reach the city till four weeks afterwards; he was ordered by Nebuchadnezzar to superintend arrangements for the destruction of Jerusalem, and also to make arrangements for the transportation of the captives to Babylon, and for the administration of the country now being laid waste. But in Jer 39:3 are named the generals who, when the city had bee taken by storm, took up their position within it. - Nor do the other difficulties, mentioned above, compel us to make such harsh conjectures. If Nergal-sharezer be the name of a person, compounded of two words, the divine name, Nergal (2Ki 17:30), and Sharezer, probably dominator tuebitur (see Delitzsch on Isa 37:38), then Samgar-Nebu-Sarsechim may possibly be a proper name compounded of three words. So long as we are unable with certainty to explain the words סמגּר and שׂרסכים out of the Assyrian, we can form no decisive judgment regarding them. But not even does the hypothesis of Hitzig account for the occurrence twice over of the name Nergal-sharezer. The Nergal-sharezer mentioned in the first passage was, no doubt,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1647

the commander-in-chief of the besieging army; but it could hardly be maintained, with anything like convincing power, that this officer could not bear the same name as that of the chief magician. And if it be conceded that there are really errors in the strange words סמגּר־נבוּ and שׂרסכים, we are as yet without the necessary means of correcting them, and obtaining the proper text.

Verses 4-7

In Jer 39:4-7 are narrated the flight of Zedekiah, his capture, and his condemnation, like what we find in Jer 52:7-11 and 2Ki 25:4-7. "When Zedekiah the king of Judah and all the men of war saw them (the Chaldean generals who had taken up their position at the mid-gate), they fled by night out of the city, by the way of the king's garden, by a gate between the walls, and he went out by the way to the Arabah. Jer 39:5. But the army of the Chaldeans pursued after them, and overtook Zedekiah in the steppes of Jericho, and captured him, and brought him to Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, to Riblah, in the land of Hamath; and he pronounced judgment on him." Hitzig and Graf consider that the connection of these events, made by  כּאשׁר ראם, is awkward, and say that the king would not have waited till the Chaldean generals took up their position at the mid-gate, nor could he see these in the night-time; that, moreover, he would hardly have waited till the city was taken before he fled. These objections are utterly worthless. If the city of Zion, in which the royal palace stood, was separated from the lower city by a wall, then the king might still be quite at ease, with his men of war, in the upper city or city of Zion, so long as the enemy, who were pushing into the lower city from the north, remained at the separating wall, near the middle gate in it; and only when he saw that the city of Zion, too, could no longer be held, did he need to betake himself to flight with the men of war around him. In actual fact, then, he might have been able to see the Chaldean generals with his own eyes, although we need not press ראם so much as to extract this meaning from it. Even at this juncture, flight was still possible through the south gate, at the king's garden, between the two walls. Thenius, on 2Ki 25:4, takes חמתים to mean a double wall, which at the southern end of Ophel closed up the ravine between Ophel and Zion. But a double wall must also

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1648

have had two gates, and Thenius, indeed, has exhibited them in his plan of Jerusalem; but the text speaks of but one gate (שׁער). "The two walls" are rather the walls which ran along the eastern border of Zion and the western border of Ophel. The gate between these was situated in the wall which ran across the Tyropoean valley, and united the wall of Zion and that of Ophel; it was called the horse-gate (Neh 3:28), and occupied the position of the modern "dung-gate" (Bab-el Moghâribeh); see on Neh 3:27-28. It was not the "gate of the fountain," as Thenius (Bücher der Kön. S. 456), Nägelsbach, and others imagine, founding on the supposed existence of the double wall at the south end of Ophel. Outside this gate, where the valley of the Tyropoeon joined with the valley of the Kidron, lay the king's garden, in the vicinity of the pool of Siloam; see on Neh 3:15. The words 'ויּצא וגו introduce further details as to the king's flight. In spite of the preceding plurals ויּברחוּ , the sing. יצא is quite suitable here, since the narrator wishes to give further details with regard to the flight of the king alone, without bringing into consideration the warriors who fled along with him. Nor does the following אחריהם militate against this view; for the Chaldean warriors pursued the king and his followers, not to capture these followers, but the king. Escaped from the city, the king took the direction of the ערבה, the plain of the Jordan, in order to escape over Jordan to Gilead. But the pursuing enemy overtook him in the steppes of Jericho (see Comm. on Joshua on Jos 4:13), and thus before he had crossed the Jordan; they led him, bound, to Riblah, before the king of Babylon. "Riblah in the land of Hamath" is still called Ribleh, a wretched village about 20 miles S.S.W. from Hums (Emesa) on the river el Ahsy (Orontes), in a large fertile plain in the northern portion of the Bekâa, on the great caravan-track which passes from Palestine through Damascus, Emesa, and Hamath to Thapsacus and Carchemish on the Euphrates; see Robinson's Bibl. Res. iii. 545, and on Comm. on Kings at 2Ki 23:33. - On דּבּר משׁפּטים, to speak judgment, pronounce sentence of punishment, see on Jer 1:16. Nebuchadnezzar caused the sons of Zedekiah and all the princes of Judah (חרים, nobles, lords, as in 27:30) to be slain before the eyes of the Jewish king; then he put out

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1649

his eyes and bound him with brazen fetters, to carry him away to Babylon (לביא for להביא), where, according to Jer 52:11, he remained in confinement till his death.

Verses 8-10

Jer 39:8-10 contain a brief notice regarding the fate of the city of Jerusalem and its inhabitants, joined on to the passage preceding, in order to prepare the way for a short account of the treatment which Jeremiah experienced at the same time. From the more detailed notice regarding the fate of the city, given in Jer 52:12., 2Ki 25:8., we see that the destruction of the city and the carrying away of the people took place one month after their fall, and that the king of Babylon had appointed Nebuzaradan, the commander of his body-guards, to go to Jerusalem for the purpose of carrying out these matters. In these verses of ours, also, Nebuzaradan is mentioned as the one who carried out the judgment that had been pronounced (Jer 39:10.); but the fact of his being sent from Riblah and the date of the execution of his commission are here omitted, so that it appears as if it had all occurred immediately after the capture of the city, and as if Nebuzaradan had been always on the spot. For the writer of this chapter did not need to give a historically exact account of the separate events; it was merely necessary briefly to mention the chief points, in order to place in proper light the treatment experienced by the prophet. The Chaldeans burned the king's house (the palace) and בּית־העם. This latter expression, taken in connection with "the king's house," signifies the rest of the city apart from the king's palace; hence בּית is used in a collective sense. the temple is not mentioned, as being of no consequence for the immediate purpose of this short notice.

Verses 9-10

Jer 39:9-10"And the rest of the people that had remained in the city, and the deserters who had deserted to him, and the rest of the people that remained, Nebuzaradan, the chief of the body-guards, led captive to Babylon. Jer 39:10. But of the poorest of the people, who had nothing, Nebuzaradan left some in the country, and he gave them vineyards and arable fields at the same time." עליו after נפלוּ refers, ad sensum, to the king of Babylon; his name, certainly, is not given in the immediate context, but it is readily suggested by it. In Jer 52:15 we find אל־מלך בּבל instead of עליו; yet we might also refer this last-named word to the following subject, Nebuzaradan, as the

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1650

representative of the king. רב־טבּחים, properly, chief of the slayers, i.e., of the executioners, is the chief of the king's body-guard, who occupied the first place among the royal attendants; see on Gen 37:36. By the addition of the words בּיום ההוּא, on that day, i.e., then, the more general account regarding Jerusalem and its inhabitants is concluded, for the purpose of attaching to it the notice regarding the fate of the prophet Jeremiah, Jer 39:11-14.

Verses 11-14

Nebuchadnezzar gave orders regarding Jeremiah, through Nebuzaradan, the chief of the body-guards: "Take him, and set thine eyes upon him, and do him no harm; but, just as he telleth thee, so do with him." In obedience to this command, "Nebuzaradan, the chief of the body-guards, sent-and Nebushasban the head chamberlain, and Nergal-sharezer the chief magician, and all (the other) chief men of the king of Babylon-they sent and took Jeremiah out of the court of the prison, and delivered him over to Gedaliah the son of Ahikam, the son of Shaphan, to take him out to the house. Thus he dwelt among the people." - On the names of the Chaldean grandees, see on Jer 39:3. Instead of the chief chamberlain (רב־סריס) Sarsechim, there is here named, as occupying this office, Nebushasban, who, it seems, along with Nebuzaradan, was not sent from Riblah till after the taking of Jerusalem, when Sarsechim was relieved.
We cannot come to any certain conclusion regarding the relation in which the two persons or names stand to one another, since Nebushasban is only mentioned in Jer 39:13, just as Sarsechim is mentioned only in Jer 39:3. Gedaliah the son of Ahikam, the man who had already on a former occasion given protection to Jeremiah (Jer 26:24), was, according to Jer 40:5, placed by the king of Babylon over the cities of Judah, i.e., was nominated the Chaldean governor over Judah and the Jews who were left in the land. To him, as such, Jeremiah is here (Jer 39:14) delivered, that he may take him into the house. בּית is neither the temple (Hitzig) nor the palace, the king's house (Graf), but the house in which Gedaliah resided as the governor; and we find here הבּית, not בּביתו, since the house was neither the property nor the permanent dwelling-place of Gedaliah. - According to this account, Jeremiah seems to have remained in the court of the prison till Nebuchadnezzar

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1651

came, to have been liberated by Nebuzaradan only at the command of the king, and to have been sent to Gedaliah the governor. But this is contradicted by the account in Jer 40:1., according to which, Nebuzaradan liberated the prophet in Ramah, where he had been kept, confined by manacles, among the captives of Judah that were to be carried to Babylon: Nebuzaradan sent for him, and gave him his liberty. This contradiction has arisen simply from the intense brevity with which, in this verse, the fate of Jeremiah at the capture and destruction of Jerusalem is recorded; it is easy to settle the difference in this way: - When the city was taken, those inhabitants, especially males, who had not carried arms, were seized by the Chaldeans and carried out of the city to Ramah, where they were held prisoners till the decision of the king regarding their fate should be made known. Jeremiah shared this lot with his fellow-countrymen. When, after this, Nebuzaradan came to Jerusalem to execute the king's commands regarding the city and its inhabitants, at the special order of his monarch, he sent for Jeremiah the prophet, taking him out from among the crowd of prisoners who had been already carried away to Ramah, loosed him from his fetters, and gave him permission to choose his place of residence. This liberation of Jeremiah from his confinement might, in a summary account, be called a sending for him out of the court of the prison, even though the prophet, at the exact moment of his liberation, was no longer in the court of the prison of the palace at Jerusalem, but had been already carried away to Ramah as a captive.

Verses 15-18

Jer 39:15-18Jeremiah's message of comfort to Ebedmelech. - Jer 39:15. "Now to Jeremiah there had come the word of the Lord, while he remained shut up in the court of the prison, as follows: Jer 39:16. Go and speak to Ebedmelech the Cushite, saying, Thus saith Jahveh of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I will bring my words against this city for evil and not for good, and they shall take place before thee on that day. Jer 39:17. But I will deliver thee on that day, saith Jahveh; neither shalt thou be given into the hand of the men of whom thou art afraid. Jer 39:18. For I will surely save thee, neither shalt thou fall by the sword, and thine own life shall be thy spoil, because thou hast trusted me, saith Jahveh." - This word of God for Ebedmelech

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1652

came to the prophet, no doubt, very soon after his deliverance from the miry pit by this pious Ethiopian; but it is not given till now, and this by way of supplement, lest its introduction previously should break the chain of events which occurred at the time of that deliverance, Jer 38:14-39:13. Hence היה, Jer 39:15, is to be translated as a pluperfect. "Go and say," etc., is not inconsistent with the fact that Jeremiah, from being in confinement, could not leave the court of the prison. For Ebedmelech could come into the prison, and then Jeremiah could go to him and declare the word of God. "Behold, I will bring my words against this city," i.e., I shall cause the evil with which I have threatened Jerusalem and its inhabitants to come, or, to be accomplished (מבי with א dropped, as in Jer 19:15, and אל־ for על). והיוּ לפּניך, "and these words are to take place before thy face," i.e., thou shalt with thine own eyes behold their fulfilment, בּיום ההוּא, i.e., at the time of their occurrence. But thou shalt be saved, not fall into the hands of the enemy and be killed, but carry away thy body out of it all as booty; cf. Jer 21:9; Jer 38:2. "Because thou hast trusted me;" i.e., through the aid afforded to my prophet thou hast continued thy faith in me.

Chap. 40

Verse 1

Jer 40:1The liberation of Jeremiah by Nebuzaradan, the chief of the body-guards. - The superscription, "The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, after that Nebuzaradan, the captain of the body-guard, had let him go from Ramah," does not seem to be appropriate; for in what follows there is no word of God declared by Jeremiah, but first, Jer 1:2-6, we are told that Jeremiah was liberated and given in charge to Gedaliah; then is told, Jer 40:7-41:18, the story of the murder of Gedaliah the governor by Ishmael, together with its consequences; and not till Jer 42:7. is there communicated a word of God, which Jeremiah uttered regarding the Jews who wished to flee to

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1653

Egypt, and had besought him for some revelation from God (Jer 42:1-6). The heading of our verse cannot refer to this prophecy, not merely for the reason that it is too far removed, but still more because it has a historical notice introducing it, Jer 42:1-6. Our superscription rather refers to Jer 1:1-3; and דּבר here, as well as there, means, not a single prophecy, but a number of prophecies. Just as דבר in Jer 1:2 forms the heading for all the prophecies uttered by Jeremiah from the thirteenth year of Josiah till the destruction of Jerusalem and the carrying away of the people in the eleventh year of Zedekiah, so the words 'הדּבר אשׁר וגו of this verse form the superscription for the prophecies which Jeremiah uttered after the destruction of Jerusalem, i.e., to the section formed by Jer 40-45, although Jer 44; Jer 45:1-5 have headings of their own; these, however, are subordinate to the heading of this chapter, in the same way as the titles in Jer 7:1; Jer 11:11; Jer 14:1, etc. fall under the general title given in Jer 1:2-3. - Regarding Nebuzaradan and the discharge of Jeremiah at Ramah (i.e., er Râm, see on Jer 31:15), cf. the explanations given on Jer 39:13 (p. 335 of this volume). In what follows, from בּקחתּו onwards, further details are given regarding Jeremiah's liberation. "When he (Nebuzaradan) sent for him, he (Jeremiah), bound with fetters, was among all the captives of Jerusalem and Judah who were being carried away to Babylon." Those who were to be carried away had been gathered together to Ramah, which lies about five miles north from Jerusalem; thence they were to set out for Babylon. אזקּים (= זקּים, Job 36:8; Isa 45:14), "fetters," - here, according to Jer 40:4, "manacles," by which, perhaps, two or more prisoners were fastened to one another.

Verses 2-3

When Jeremiah had been brought, the commander of the guards said to him, "The Lord thy God hath declared this evil against this place, and the Lord hath brought it on (brought it to pass), and hath done as He spake; for ye have sinned against the Lord, and have not hearkened to His voice: thus hath this thing happened to you." The mode of expression is that of Jeremiah; but Nebuzaradan may have expressed the thought, that now there had been fulfilled what Jeremiah had predicted in the name of God, because the people, by their rebellion, had broken the oath they had sworn before their God

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1654

(cf. Eze 17:13.), and had thereby sinned against Him. The article before דּבר, required by the Qeri, is unnecessary; cf. Ewald, §293, a; Gesenius, §112, 2, a.

Verses 4-6

Jer 40:4-6Nebuzaradan then declared him free: "And now, behold, I free thee this day from the shackles on thine hands. If it please thee to come with me to Babylon, then come, and I will set mine eye upon thee (i.e., take thee under my protection, cf. Jer 39:12). But if it please thee not to come with me to Babylon, then let it be so. See, the whole country is before thee (cf. Gen 13:9; Gen 20:5, etc.); whithersoever it pleases thee, and seems right to thee to go, go." Jer 40:5. And because Jeremiah had not yet returned, he said, "Go back to Gedaliah,...whom the king of Babylon hath set over the cities of Judah, and remain with him among the people; or go wherever it seemeth right to thee to go." And the commander of the guard gave him what provisions he required and a present, and sent him away; thereafter Jeremiah went to Gedaliah to Mizpah, and remained there among the people who had been left behind in the land (Jer 40:6). The words ועדנּוּ  were certainly misunderstood by the old translators, who made various conjectures as to their meaning; even yet, Dahler, Movers, Graf, and Nägelsbach are of opinion that "it is impossible to understand" this sentence, and that the text is plainly corrupt. Luther renders: "for no one will any longer return thither." Hitzig considers this translation substantially correct, and only requiring to be a little more exactly rendered: "but there, no one returns home again." Apart, however, from the consideration that on this view עדנּוּ, which stands at the head of the sentence, does not get full justice paid to it, the thought does not accord with what precedes, and the reference of the suffix to the indefinite "person" or "one" is extremely forced. According to what goes before, in which Nebuzaradan gives the prophet full liberty of choosing whether he would go with him to Babylon or remain in the country, in whatever part he likes, and from the following advice which he gives him, "Go, or return, to Gedaliah," the words עדנּוּ לא ישׁוּב, on account of the third person (ישׁוּב), cannot certainly be an address of the chief captain to Jeremiah, and as little can they contain a remark about going to Babylon. The words are evidently, both as to

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1655

their form and their contents, a circumstantial clause, containing a statement regarding the relation of Jeremiah to the proposal of the chief captain (and this is the view taken long ago by Kimchi), i.e., a parenthetical remark of the narrator, according to which Nebuzaradan demands that he shall remain with Gedaliah, in the sense, "and yet he was not going back," or, still better, on account of the imperfect ישׁוּב, "because he was still unwilling to go back," namely, to this or that place indefinitely; then Nebuzaradan further said, "Return, then, to Gedaliah." If we supply ויּאמר before 'ושׁוּבה וגו, with which Nebuzaradan brings the matter to a close, the meaning is quite clear. It is evident from Jer 40:4 that Nebuzaradan stopped a little in order to let Jeremiah decide; but since the prophet did not return, i.e., neither decided in the one way nor the other, he adds 'ושׁוּבה וגו, and thereby puts an end to the indecision. ארחה means a portion of food, or victuals; cf. Jer 52:34 and Pro 15:17. Mizpah, where Gedaliah had taken up his position, is the Mizpah of the tribe of Benjamin, where Samuel judged the people and chose Saul to be king (1Sa 7:15., Jer 10:17); doubtless the modern Neby Samwil, five miles north-west from Jerusalem, a short distance south-west from Ramah; see on Jos 18:26.

Verse 7

Jer 40:7Return of those who had been dispersed: they gather round Gedaliah. - Whilst the country and its capital were being conquered, many of the men of war had dispersed here and there through the land, and fled for refuge to regions difficult of access, where they could not be reached by the Chaldeans; others had even escaped into the territory of the Moabites, Ammonites, and Edomites. When these heard that now, after the destruction of Jerusalem and the carrying away of the captives, the king of Babylon had appointed Gedaliah as governor over the few people who had been left behind in the country, they returned from their several places of refuge, and came to Mizpah to Gedaliah, who promised them protection and safety, on condition that they would recognise the authority of the king of Babylon and peaceably cultivate the soil. שׂרי חילים, "leaders of the forces, captains." בּשׂדה, "in the country," as opposed to the city; שׂדה, "fields," as in Jer 17:3. אנשׁיהם, "their men," the troops under the captains. כּי הפקיד אתּו,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1656

"that he had committed to his oversight and care." "Men," viz., old, weak, infirm men; "women and children," whose husbands and fathers had perished; "and some of the poor of the country, of those who had not been carried captive to Babylon" (מן partitive), i.e., the poor and mean people whom the Chaldeans had left behind in the country (Jer 39:10).

Verses 8-12

These captains came to Mizpah, namely (ו explicative), Ishmael the son of Nethaniah (according to Jer 41:1, the grandson of Elishama, and of royal blood), Johanan and Jonathan the sons of Kareah (cf. Jer 40:13 and Jer 41:11, Jer 41:16; Jer 42:1.; the name Jonathan is omitted in 2Ki 25:23; see on this passage), Seraiah the son of Tanhumeth, and the sons of Ephai the Netophathite (from Netophah in the vicinity of Bethlehem, 1Ch 2:54; Ezr 2:22), Jezaniah (יזניהוּ; but in 2Ki 25:23 יאזניהוּ), the Maachathite, from Maachah, a district in Syria near Hermon, Deu 3:14; Jos 12:5. These men, who had borne arms against the Chaldeans, were concerned for their safety when they returned into the country. Gedaliah sware to them, i.e., promised them on oath, "Be not afraid to serve the Chaldeans; remain in the country and serve the king of Babylon, and it shall be well with you. And as for me, behold, I shall remain at Mizpah to stand before the Chaldeans who will come to us," i.e., as lieutenant of the king of Babylon, to represent you before the Chaldean officers and armies, to maintain your rights and interests, so that you may be able to settle down where you choose, without anxiety, and cultivate the land. "And as for yourselves, father ye wine and fruit (קיץ, see on 2Sa 16:1) and oil, and put them in your vessels." אסף is used of the ingathering of the fruits of the ground. It was during the fifth or sixth month (2Ki 25:8), the end of July or beginning of August, that grapes, figs, and olives became ripe; and these had grown so plentifully in comparison with the small number of those who had returned, that they could gather sufficient for their wants. "And dwell in your cities, cities which ye seize," i.e., which you shall take possession of. Jer 40:11. Those Jews also who had fled, during the war, into the neighbouring countries of Moab, Ammon, Edom, etc., returned to Judah when they learned that the king of Babylon had left a remnant, and

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1657

placed Gedaliah over them; they came to Mizpah and Gedaliah, who appointed them places to dwell in, and they gathered much wine and fruit, i.e., made a rich vintage and fruit harvest. נתן שׁארית, "to give a remainder," as it were to leave a remainder ('הותיר שׁ'( redniamer, Jer 44:7, or 'שׂוּם שׁ, Gen 45:7).

Verses 13-16

Jer 40:13-16Gedaliah is forewarned of Ishmael's intention to murder him. - After the return of those who had taken refuge in Moab, etc., Johanan the son of Kareah, together with the rest of the captains who were scattered here and there through the country, came to Gedaliah at Mizpah, to say to him: "Dost thou know indeed that Baalis the king of the Ammonites hath sent Ishmael the son of Nethaniah to take thy life?" The words "that were in the country" are neither a gloss, nor a thoughtless repetition by some scribe from Jer 40:7 (as Hitzig and Graf suppose), but they are repeated for the purpose of distinguishing plainly between the captains with their men from the Jews who had returned out of Moab, Ammon, and Edom. הכּות, "to strike the soul, life" = to kill; cf. Gen 37:21; Deu 19:6. What induced the king of Ammon to think of assassination - whether it was personal hostility towards Gedaliah, or the hope of destroying the only remaining support of the Jews, and thereby perhaps putting himself in possession of the country, - cannot be determined. That he employed Ishmael for the accomplishment of his purpose, may have been owing to the fact that this man had a personal envy of Gedaliah; for Ishmael, being sprung from the royal family (Jer 40:1), probably could not endure being subordinate to Gedaliah. - The plot had become known, and Gedaliah was secretly informed of it by Johanan; but the former did not believe the rumour. Johanan then secretly offered to slay Ishmael, taking care that no one should know who did it, and urged compliance in the following terms: "Why should he slay thee, and all the Jews who have gathered themselves round thee be scattered, and the remnant of Judah perish?" Johanan thus called his attention to the evil consequences which would result to the remnant left in the land were he killed; but Gedaliah replied, "Do not this thing, for thou speakest a lie against Ishmael." The Qeri needlessly changes אל־תּעשׂ into אל־תּעשׂה; cf. Jer 39:12.

Chap. 41

Verses 1-3

Jer 41:1-3Murder of Gedaliah and his followers, as well as other Jews, by Ishmael. - Jer 41:1-3. The warning of Johanan had been only too well founded. In the seventh month - only two months, therefore, after the destruction of Jerusalem and the appointment of Gedaliah as governor - Ishmael came with the men to Mizpah, and was hospitably received by Gedaliah and invited to his table. Ishmael is here more exactly described as to his family descent, for the purpose of throwing a stronger light upon the exceeding cruelty of the murders afterwards ascribed to him. He was the son of Nethaniah, the son of Elishama - perhaps the secretary of state mentioned Jer 36:12, or more likely the son of David who bore this name, 2Sa 5:6; 1Ch 3:8; 1Ch 14:7; so that Ishmael would belong to a lateral branch of the house of David, be of royal extraction, and one of the royal lords. ורבּי המּלך cannot be joined with Ishmael as the subject, because in what follows there is no further mention made of the royal lords, but only of Ishmael and his ten men; it belongs to what precedes, מזּרע המּלוּכּה, so that we must repeat מן before רבּי. The objections of Nägelsbach to this view will not stand examination. It is not self-evident that Ishmael, because he was of royal blood, was therefore also one of the royal nobles; for the רבּים certainly did not form a hereditary caste, but were perhaps a class of nobles in the service of the king, to which class the princes did not belong simply in virtue of their being princes. But the improbability that Ishmael should have been able with ten men to overpower the whole of the Jewish followers of Gedaliah, together with the Chaldean warriors, and (according to Jer 41:7) out of eighty men to kill some, making prisoners of the rest, is not so great as to compel us to take רבּי המּלך in such a meaning as to make it stand in contradiction with the statement, repeated twice, over, that Ishmael, with his ten men, did all this. Eleven men who are determined to commit murder can kill a large number of persons who are not prepared against such an attempt, and may also keep a whole district in terror.^[11] "And they did eat bread there together," i.e., they were invited by Gedaliah to

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1659

his table. While at meat, Ishmael and his ten men rose and slew Gedaliah with the sword. On account of ויּמת אתו, which comes after, Hitzig and Graf would change ויּכּוּ into ויּכּוּ, he slew him, Gedaliah; this alteration is possibly warranted, but by no means absolutely necessary. The words 'ויּמת אתו וגו, "and he killed him," contain a reflection of the narrator as to the greatness of the crime; in conformity with the facts of the case, the murder is ascribed only to the originator of the deed, since the ten men of Ishmael's retinue were simply his executioners. Besides Gedaliah, Ishmael killed "all the Jews that were with him, with Gedaliah in Mizpah, and the Chaldeans that were found there, the men of war." The very expression shows that, of the Jews, only those are meant who were present in the house with Gedaliah, and, of the Chaldean soldiers, only those warriors who had been allowed him as a guard, who for the time being were his servants, and who, though they were not, as Schmidt thinks, hausto liberalius vino inebriati, yet, as Chr. B. Michaelis remarks, were tunc temporis inermes et imparati. The Jews of post-exile times used to keep the third day of the seventh month as a fast-day, in commemoration of the murder of Gedaliah; see on Zec 7:3.

Verses 4-5

On the next day after the murder of Gedaliah, "when no man knew it," i.e., before the deed had become known beyond Mizpah, "there came eighty men from Shechem, Shiloh, and Samaria," having all the tokens of mourning, "with their beards shaven, their clothes rent, and with cuts and scratches on their bodies (מתגּדדים, see on Jer 16:6), and a meat-offering and frankincense in their hand, to bring them into the house of Jahveh." The order in which the towns are named is not geographical; for Shiloh lay south from Shechem, and a little to the side from the straight road leading from Shechem to Jerusalem. Instead of שׁלו, the lxx (Cod. Vat.) have Σαλήμ; they use the same word as the name of a place in Gen 33:18, although the Hebrew שׁלם is there an adjective, meaning safe, in good condition. According to Robinson (Bibl. Res. iii. 102), there is a village named Sâlim

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1660

three miles east from Nablûs (Shechem); Hitzig and Graf, on the strength of this, prefer the reading of the lxx, to preserve the order of the names in the text. But Hitzig has renounced this conjecture in the second edition of his Commentary, "because Sâlim in Hebrew would be שׁולם, not שׁלם." There is absolutely no foundation for the view in the lxx and in Gen 33:18; the supposition, moreover, that the three towns are given in their topographical order, and must have stood near each other, is also unfounded. Shechem may have been named first because the greater number of these men came from that city, and other men from Shiloh and Samaria accompanied them. These men were pious descendants of the Israelites who belonged to the kingdom of Israel; they dwelt among the heathen colonists who had been settled in the country under Esarhaddon (2Ki 17:24.), but, from the days of Hezekiah or Josiah, had continued to serve Jahveh in Jerusalem, where they used to attend the feasts (2Ch 34:9, cf. Jer 30:11). Nay, even after the destruction of Jerusalem, at the seasons of the sacred feasts, they were still content to bring at least unbloody offerings - meat-offerings and incense - on the still sacred spot where these things used to be offered to Jahveh; but just because this could now be done only on the ruins of what had once been the sanctuary, they appeared there with all the signs of deep sorrow for the destruction of this holy place and the cessation of sacrificial worship. In illustration of this, Grotius has adduced a passage from Papinian's instit. de rerum divis. § sacrae: "Locus in quo aedes sacrae sunt aedificatae, etiam diruto aedificio, sacer adhuc manet."  

Verses 6-7

Ishmael went out from Mizpah to meet these men, always weeping as he went (הלך הלך וּבכה, cf. Ges. §131, ab; Ew. §280, b). If they came from Ephraim by way of Gibeon (el Jîb), the road on to Jerusalem passed close by Mizpah. When Ishmael met them, he asked them to come to Gedaliah (to Mizpah). But when they had entered the city, "Ishmael slew them into the midst of the pit" (which was there), i.e., killed them and cast their corpses into the pit.

Verses 8-9

Only ten men out of the eighty saved their lives, and this by saying to Ishmael, "Do not kill us, for we have hidden stores in the field - wheat, and barley, and oil, and honey." מטמנים are excavations in the form of

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1661

cisterns, or subterranean storehouses in the open country, for keeping grain; the openings or entrances to these are so concealed that the eye of a stranger could not perceive them. Such places are still universally employed in Palestine at the present day (Robinson's Palestine, i. pp. 324-5), and are also to be found in other southern countries, both in ancient and modern times; see proofs of this in Rosenmüller's Scholia ad hunc locum. It is remarked, in Jer 41:9, of the pit into which Ishmael threw the corpses, that it was the same that King Asa had made, i.e., had caused to be made, against, i.e., for protection against, Baasha the king of Israel. In the historical books there is no mention made of this pit in the account of the war between Asa and Baasha, 1Ki 15:16-22 and 2Ch 16:1-6; it is only stated in 1Ki 15:22 and 2Ch 16:6 that, after Baasha, who had fortified Ramah, had been compelled to return to his own land because of the invasion of Benhadad the Syrian king, whom Asa had called to his aid, the king of Judah ordered all his people to carry away from Ramah the stones and timber which Baasha had employed in building, and therewith fortify Geba and Mizpah. The expression מפּני בעשׁא certainly implies that the pit had been formed as a protection against Baasha, and belonged to the fortifications raised at that time. However, הבּור cannot mean the burial-place belonging to the city (Grotius), but only a cistern (cf. 2Ki 10:14); and one such as could contain a considerable store of water was as necessary as a wall and a moat for the fortification of a city, so that it might be able to endure a long siege (Graf). Hitzig, on the other hand, takes בּור to mean a long and broad ditch which cut off the approach to the city from Ephraim, or which, forming a part of the fortifications, made a break in the road to Jerusalem, though it was bridged over in times of peace, thus forming a kind of tunnel. This idea is certainly incorrect; for, according to Jer 41:7, the "ditch" was inside the city (בּתוך). The expression בּיד גּדליהוּ is obscure, and cannot be explained with any of certainty. בּיד cannot mean "through the fault of" Gedaliah (Raschi), or "because of" Gedaliah - for his sake (Kimchi, Umbreit), or "coram" Gedaliah (Venema), but must rather be rendered "by means of, through the medium of," or "at the side of, together with." Nägelsbach has decided

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1662

for the rendering "by means of," giving as his reason the fact that Ishmael had made use of the name of Gedaliah in order to decoy these men into destruction. He had called to them, "Come to Gedaliah" (Jer 41:6); and simply on the authority of this name, they had followed him. But the employment of the name as a means of decoy can hardly be expressed by בּיד. We therefore prefer the meaning "at the hand = at the side of" (following the Syriac, L. de Dieu, Rosenmüller, Ewald), although this signification cannot be established from the passages cited by Rosenm. (1Sa 14:34; 1Sa 16:2; Ezr 7:23), nor can the meaning "together with" (Ewald) be shown to belong to it. On the other hand, a passage which is quite decisive for the rendering "by the hand of, beside," is Job 15:23 : "there stands ready at his hand (בּידו, i.e., close to him) a day of darkness." If we take this meaning for the passage now before us, then בּיד גּדליהוּ cannot be connected with אשׁר , in accordance with the Masoretic accents, but with השׁליך שׁם, "where Ishmael cast the bodies of the men whom he had slain, by the side of Gedaliah;" so that it is not stated till here and now, and only in a casual manner, what had become of Gedaliah's corpse. Nothing that admits of being proved can be brought against this view.^[12]
The הוּא which follows is a predicate: "the ditch wherein...was that which Asa the king had formed."
The motive for this second series of assassinations by Ishmael is difficult to discover. The supposition that he was afraid of

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1663

being betrayed, and for this reason killed these strangers, not wishing to be troubled with them, is improbable, for the simple reason that these strangers did not want to go to Mizpah, but to Jerusalem. For the supposition of Thenius (on 2Ki 25:23) and of Schmieder, that the people had intended going to Mizpah to a house of God that was there, is very properly rejected by Hitzig, because no mention is made in history of a place of worship at Mizpah; and, according to the express statement of Jer 41:6., Ishmael had enticed them into this city only by inviting them to come and see Gedaliah. Had Ishmael wished merely to conceal the murder of Gedaliah from these strangers, he ought to have done anything but let them into Mizpah. As little can we regard this deed (with Graf) as an act of revenge on these Israelites by Ishmael for the murder of his relations and equals in rank by Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 52:10), because these men, who had now for a long time been living together with heathens, were Assyrian and Chaldean subjects. For we cannot comprehend how he could look on these Israelites as friends of the Chaldeans, and vent his anger against the Chaldean rule by murdering them; the mournful procession which they formed, and the offerings they were carrying to present, proclaimed them faithful adherents of Judah. Nägelsbach, accordingly, is of opinion that Ishmael had simply intended robbery. As it is evident that he, a rough and wild man, had assassinated the noble Gedaliah from personal jealousy, and in order to further the political interest of his Ammonite patron, he must have been seeking to put himself in the position of his victim, or to flee. "When we find, moreover, that he soon murdered a peaceable caravan of pilgrims, and preserved the lives only of a few who offered to show him hidden treasures; when, finally, we perceive that the whole turba imbellis of Mizpah were seized and carried off into slavery, Ishmael proves himself a mere robber." But, though the fact that Ishmael spared the lives of the ten men who offered to show him hidden treasures seems to support this view, yet the supposition that nothing more than robbery was intended does not suffice to explain the double murder. The two series of assassinations plainly stand in the closest connection, and must have been executed from one and the same motive. It was at the instigation

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1664

of the Ammonite king that Ishmael murdered Gedaliah; moreover, as we learn from the report brought to Gedaliah by Johanan (Jer 40:15), the crime was committed in the expectation that the whole of Judah would then be dispersed, and the remnant of them perish. This murder was thus the work of the Ammonite king, who selected the royally-descended Ishmael as his instrument simply because he could conveniently, for the execution of his plans, employ the personal envy of one man against another who had been preferred by the king of Babylon. There can be no doubt that the same motive which urged him to destroy the remnant of Judah, i.e., to frustrate the attempt to gather and restore Judah, was also at work in the massacre of the pilgrims who were coming to the temple. If Ishmael, the leader of a robber-gang, had entered into the design of the Ammonite king, then everything that might serve for the preservation and consolidation of Judah must have been a source of pain to him; and this hatred of his towards Judah, which derived its strength and support from his religious views, incited him to murder the Jewish pilgrims to the temple, although the prospect of obtaining treasures might well cooperate with this in such a way as to make him spare the ten men who pretended they had hidden stores. With this, too, we can easily connect the hypocritical dealing on the part of Ishmael, in going forth, with tears, to meet these pious pilgrims, so that he might deceive them by making such a show of grief over the calamity that had befallen Judah; fore the wicked often assume an appearance of sanctity for the more effectual accomplishment of their evil deeds. The lxx evidently did not know what to make of this passage as it stands; hence, in Jer 41:6, they have quite dropped the words "from Mizpah," and have rendered הלך הלך  by αὐτοὶ ἐπορεύοντο καὶ ἔκλαιον. Hitzig and Graf accept this as indicating the original text, since Ishmael had no ostensible ground for weeping. But the reasons which are supposed to justify this conjecture are, as Nägelsbach well remarks, of such a nature that one can scarcely believe they are seriously held.

Verse 10

After executing these murderous deeds, Ishmael led away into captivity all the people that still remained in Mizpah, the king's daughters and all the people whom Nebuchadnezzar had committed to the care of

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1665

Gedaliah, intending to go over with them to the Ammonites. As the object of ויּשׁבּ is very far removed through the intervention of a relative clause, the connection is resumed by ויּשׁבּם. "The king's daughters" are not only the daughters of Zedekiah, but female members generally of the royal house, princesses, analogous to בּן־מלך, king's son = prince, Jer 36:26; Jer 38:6.

Verses 11-12

Jer 41:11-12  - Jer 41:11. When Johanan and the rest of the captains heard of what had taken place in Mizpah, they marched out with all their men to fight Ishmael, and came on him at the great water at Gibeon, i.e., by the pool at Gibeon which is mentioned 2Sa 2:13, one of the large receptacles for water which are still found there; see on 2Sa 2:13. Gibeon, now called el Jib (see on Jos 9:3), was situated only about two miles north from Mizpah; from which we may conclude that it was soon known what had happened, and the captains quickly assembled their men and marched after Ishmael.

Verses 13-15

When those who had been carried off by Ishmael saw these captains, they were glad, since they had followed their captor merely because they were forced to do so. They all turned, and went over to Johanan; but Ishmael escaped from Johanan, with eight men, - having thus lost two in the fight with Johanan, - and went to the Ammonites.

Verse 16

After the escape of Ishmael, it was to be feared that the Chaldeans would avenge the murder of the governor, and make the Jews who remained atone for the escape of the murderer by executing them or carrying them away to Babylon. Accordingly, Johanan and the other captains determined to withdraw to Egypt with the men, women, and children that had been carried off by Ishmael; these they conducted first to Bethlehem, where they encamped for the purpose of deliberating as to the rest of the journey, and taking due precautions. The account given in Jer 41:16 is clumsily expressed, especially the middle portion, between "whom he had brought back" and "the son of Ahikam;" and in this part the words "from Mizpah" are particularly troublesome in breaking the connection: "whom he (Johanan) had brought back from Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, from Mizpah, after he (Ishmael) had slain Gedaliah," while it is more correctly stated in the second

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1666

relative clause, "whom he had brought back from Gibeon." Hitzig and Graf accordingly suppose that, originally, instead of  אשׁר השׁיב מאת, there stood in the text אשׁר שׁבה, "whom he (Ishmael) had led captive from Mizpah, after he had slain Gedaliah." Thus the whole becomes clear. Against this conjecture there only stands the fact that the lxx translate οὕς ἀπέστρεψεν ἀπὸ  ̓Ισμαήλ; they must thus have read אשׁר השׁיב מאת, and omitted merely המּצפּה as unsuited to the passage. However, the error may be even older than the lxx, and השׁיב מאת may easily have arisen through a scribe having glanced at the words אשׁר השׁיב of the last clause. The words from "men" to "chamberlains" form the more exact specification of the general expression "all the remnant of the people:" "men, viz., men of war, women (including the king's daughters, Jer 40:10), and children and chamberlains" (סריסים, guardians and servants of the female members of the royal family).

Verses 17-18

Jer 41:17-18 "They marched and stopped (made a half) at the inn if Chimham, which is near Bethlehem." גּרוּת, ἅπ.λεγ., considered etymologically, must mean diversorium, hospitium, an inn, khan, or caravanserai. Instead of the Kethib כמוהם, many codices read כּמהם (like the Qeri); nor, have any of the old translators read וּ or וׁ in the word. The Qeri is evidently correct, and we are to read כּמהם, the name of a son of Barzillai the rich Gileadite, 2Sa 19:38, 2Sa 19:41, who is supposed to have built or founded this caravanserai for the convenience of travellers. The words "because of the Chaldeans" in the beginning of Jer 41:18 depend on "to go to Egypt" at the end of the preceding verse: "to go to Egypt for fear of the Chaldeans," on account of the murder of Gedaliah by Ishmael. The Word of God Concerning the Flight to Egypt
At the halting-place near Bethlehem the captains and the people whom they led deem it necessary to inquire through Jeremiah as to the will of God regarding their intention; they betake themselves to the prophet with the request that he would address God in prayer for them regarding this matter, and they promise that they will, in any case, comply with the message that he may receive from God (Jer 42:1-6). Whereupon, after ten days, the word of the Lord came to the prophet, vv. 7-22,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1667

to the effect that, if they remained in the country, the Lord would take pity on them and protect them from the Chaldeans, and establish them; but, should they go to Egypt, against the will of the Lord, then the evil which they feared would follow them thither, so that they would perish by the sword, hunger, and pestilence.

Chap. 42

Verses 1-6

Jer 42:1-6"And there drew near all the captains, namely, Johanan the son of Kareah, and Jezaniah the son of Hoshaiah, and all the people, from little to great, Jer 42:2. And said to Jeremiah the prophet, Let our supplication come before thee, and pray for us to Jahveh thy God, for all this remnant (for we are left a few out of many, as thine eyes see us); Jer 42:3. That Jahveh thy God may tell us the way in which we should go, and the thing that we should do." Of the captains, two, viz., Johanan and Jezaniah, are mentioned as the leaders of the people and the directors of the whole undertaking, who also, Jer 42:1., insolently accuse the prophet of falsehood, and carry out the proposed march to Egypt. Jezaniah is in Jer 40:8 called the Maachathite; here he is named in connection with his father, "the son of Hoshaiah;" while in Jer 43:2, in conjunction with Johanan the son of Kareah, Azariah the son of Hoshaiah is mentioned, which name the lxx also have in Jer 42:1 of this chapter. Hitzig, Ewald, etc., are consequently of the opinion that יזניה in our verse has been written by mistake for עזריה. But more probable is the supposition that the error is in the עזריה of Jer 43:2, inasmuch as there is no reason to doubt the identity of Jezaniah the son of Hoshaiah with the Jezaniah descended from Maacha (Jer 40:8); and the assumption that יזניה is incorrect in two passages (Jer 42:1 and Jer 40:8) is highly improbable. They go to the prophet Jeremiah, whom they had taken with them from Mizpah, where he was living among the people, with the rest of the inhabitants of the place (Jer 41:16). תּפּל־נא  as in Jer 37:20; see on Jer 36:7. The request made to the prophet that he would intercede for them with the Lord, which they further urge on the ground that the number left out of the whole people is small, while there is implied in this the wish that God may not let this small remnant also perish; - this request Nägelsbach considers a piece of hypocrisy, and the form of asking the prophet "a mere farce,"

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1668

since it is quite plain from Jer 43:1-6 that the desire to go to Egypt was already deeply rooted in their minds, and from this they would not allow themselves to be moved, even by the earnest warning of the prophet. But to hypocrites, who were playing a mere farce with the prophet, the Lord would have probably replied in a different way from what we find in Jer 42:8-22. As the Searcher of hearts, He certainly would have laid bare their hypocrisy. And however unequivocally the whole address implies the existence of disobedience to the voice of God, it yet contains nothing which can justify the assumption that it was only in hypocrisy that they wished to learn the will of God. We must therefore assume that their request addressed to the prophet was made in earnest, although they expected that the Lord's reply would be given in terms favourable to their intention. They wished to obtain from God information as to which way they should go, and what they should do, - not as to whether they should remain in the country or go to Egypt. "The way that we should go" is, of course, not to be understood literally, as if they merely wished to be told the road by which they would most safely reach Egypt; neither, on the other hand, are the words to be understood in a merely figurative sense, of the mode of procedure they ought to pursue; but they are to be understood of the road they ought to take in order to avoid the vengeance of the Chaldeans which they dreaded, - in the sense, whither they ought to go, in order to preserve their lives from the danger which threatened them.

Verses 4-6

Jeremiah replies: "I have heard (i.e., acceded to your request); behold, I will pray to Jahveh your God, according to your words; and it shall come to pass that whatever Jahveh answers you I will tell you, I will not keep anything from you." Jer 42:5. They said further: "Let Jahveh be a true and faithful witness against us, if we do not just according to all the word which Jahveh thy God shall send thee (to declare) unto us. Jer 42:6. Whether it be good or bad, we shall obey the voice of Jahveh our God, to whom we send thee, that it may be well with us when we obey the voice of Jahveh our God." עד, Pro 14:25, and נאמן, Isa 8:2; Psa 89:38. Both predicates occupy emphatic positions. God is to be a faithful witness, not in regard to the

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1669

truth of what they say, but as regards the fulfilment of their promise, so that, if they would not obey His word, He might come forward to punish them. ישׁלחך is construed with a double accusative: to send away a person with something, i.e., to give him a commission. After "whether it be good or evil," there is no need for supplying "in our eyes" (בּעינינוּ), as Hitzig and Graf allege: "whether it please us or not;" the subject is הדּבר: "we will obey the word, whether it be good or evil," i.e., whether it announce good or evil to come (cf. Ecc 12:14). The Kethib אנוּ occurs only in this passage in the Old Testament; the Qeri accordingly substitutes אנחנוּ: the former, however, is taken from the vulgar tongue, and should not be altered here. כּי נשׁמע does not mean "because we obey," but "when we obey." The hearing is the condition, not the cause of the prosperity.

Verses 7-11

Jer 42:7-11The word of the Lord. - At the end of ten days, the reply that had been asked for came from the Lord. Hitzig and Graf think that Jeremiah had lingered ten days with the answer, in order to obtain strong and clear conviction, "matured through his own meditation, probably also in part confirmed by the arrival of further news." This opinion is characterized by Nägelsbach as "in harmony with modern science, but unhistorical;" it should rather be called unscriptural, as resting on a denial of divine inspiration. The reason why the Lord did not make known His will to the prophet for ten days was a disciplinary one. By waiting, those who asked would get time for bethinking themselves, and for quietly considering the situation of affairs, so that they might be able, calmly and collectedly, to receive and obey the answer of God, which was far from satisfying the fears and wishes of their heart. Jer 42:8. Jeremiah called the captains and all the people together, and announced to them as follows: Jer 42:9. "Thus saith Jahveh, the God of Israel, to whom ye have sent me, that I might bring your supplication before Him: Jer 42:10. If ye will indeed abide in this land, then will I build you up and not pull down; and I will plant you, but not root out; for I repent of the evil that I have done to you. Jer 42:11. Be not afraid of the king of Babylon, whom ye fear, be not afraid of him, saith Jahveh; for I am with you to save you and to deliver you out

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1670

of his hand. Jer 42:12. And I will get pity for you, so that he shall take pity on you, and bring you back to your land. Jer 42:13. But if ye say, We will not remain in this land, so that ye will not obey the voice of Jahveh your God, Jer 42:14. Saying, Nay, but we will go to the land of Egypt, that we may not see war nor hear the wound of a trumpet, and we shall not hunger after bread, and we will dwell there. - Jer 42:15. Now therefore hear the word of Jahveh, ye remnant of Judah: Thus saith Jahveh of hosts, the God of Israel, If ye do indeed set your face to go to Egypt, and go to sojourn there, Jer 42:16. Then shall the sword, of which ye are afraid, overtake you there, in the land of Egypt, and hunger, which ye dread, shall there follow hard after you, in Egypt, and there shall ye die. Jer 42:17. And all the men who have set their face to go to Egypt, to sojourn there, shall die by the sword, and through hunger, and from the plague; nor shall they have any one left or escaped from the evil which I will bring on them. Jer 42:18. For thus saith Jahveh of hosts, the God of Israel: As mine anger and my wrath were poured out upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so shall my wrath be poured out upon you when ye go to Egypt, and ye shall become an execration, and an astonishment, and a curse, and a reproach, and ye shall not see this place again. - Jer 42:19. Jahveh hath spoken to you, O remnant of Judah. Go not to Egypt: ye shall know for certain that I have warned you to-day. Jer 42:20. For ye err at the risk of your souls when ye sent me to Jahveh your God, saying, Pray for us to Jahveh our God, and according to all that Jahveh our God shall say to us, so tell us, and we will do it. Jer 42:21. Now I have told you to-day, and ye have not obeyed the voice of Jahveh your God, nor in anything for which He hath sent me unto you. Jer 42:22. Now, therefore, ye must surely know that ye shall die by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence in the place whither ye have been pleased to go to sojourn."
The Lord's reply extends as far as Jer 42:18; the last four verses (19-22) form an epilogue, a further address by the prophet, in which he once more specially impresses God's resolution on the minds of the people. The answer of God consists (1) in the promise that, if they will remain in the land, the Lord is willing to build them up, and protect them from

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1671

the wrath of the king of Babylon (Jer 42:9-12); and (2) the threat that, if they will go to Egypt against the advice and will of the Lord, they shall certainly perish there by the sword, famine, and pestilence (Jer 42:13-18). On the expression הפּיל תּהנּה, see on Jer 36:7. שׁוב (Jer 42:10) can only be inf. abs. of ישׁב, for ישׁוב ; if we view it as coming from שׁוּב morf , we get no suitable meaning, for the thought si revertendo illuc manseritis in hâc terrâ (C. B. Michaelis) could not be expressed by שׁוב תּשׁבוּ. Certainly there is no other instance of such a form as שׁוב being used for ישׁוב; in a verb like ישׁב, however, which drops the י in the inf. constr., a like omission in the inf. abs. is quite conceivable, while the supposition of some injury having been done to the text (Olshausen, Gram. §89) is less probable. On the expression, "I will build you," etc., cf. Jer 24:6; Jer 31:4; Jer 33:7. "I repent of the evil" is an anthropopathic expression for the cancelling of a penal sentence: cf. Joe 2:14, etc. - In Jer 42:11, the repetition of the words "do not fear him" produces special emphasis.

Verse 12

Jer 42:12 "I shall give you compassion," i.e., obtain it for you, so that the king of Babylon will show pity on you; cf. Gen 43:14; 1Ki 8:50. J. D. Michaelis, Hitzig, Ewald, and Graf, following the lxx, Vulgate, and Syriac, would change והשׁיב into הושׁיב (make you dwell); but there is no necessity for this, since השׁיב makes good enough sense, provided we refer it, not to the return of those who had been exiled to Babylon, but, as the connection requires, to the departure from Mizpah, after the half near Bethlehem, in the intended flight to Egypt; we must, besides, view this departure as a complete forsaking of their country, and the leaders in this emigration as being fugitives who had fled before the Chaldeans, and had returned only a short time before, for the purpose of settling down again in the country.

Verses 13-16

The threatening if, in spite of warning and against God's will, they should still persist in going to Egypt. The protasis of the conditional sentence begun in Jer 42:13, "If ye say," etc., extends onwards through Jer 42:14; the apodosis is introduced co-ordinately with the commencement of Jer 42:15, "Now therefore," etc. קול שׁופר, "the sound of war-trumpet," as in Jer 4:19. On "hungering after bread," cf. Amo 8:11. הלחם (with

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1672

the article) is the bread necessary for life. "The remnant of Judah" is to be understood of those who still remained in the land, as is shown by Jer 42:2; see also Jer 42:19, Jer 43:5; Jer 44:12, Jer 44:14. The warning given in Jer 42:16 contains the idea that the very evil which they feared would come on them in Judah will befall them in Egypt. There they shall perish by sword, famine, and plague, since Nebuchadnezzar will conquer Egypt; cf. Jer 43:8-13.

Verses 17-22

Jer 42:17-22 ויהיוּ, used instead of the impersonal והיה, is referred to the following subject by a rather unusual kind of attraction; cf. Ewald, §345, b. All the men who set their faces, i.e., intend, to go to Egypt shall perish; not a single one shall escape the evil; for the same judgment of wrath which has befallen Jerusalem shall also come on those who flee to Egypt; cf. Jer 7:20. On the expression "ye shall become a curse," etc., cf. Jer 24:9; Jer 25:18; Jer 29:18.
Taking for granted that the leaders of the people will not obey, Jeremiah appends to the word of the Lord an earnest address, in which several points are specially insisted on, viz., that the Lord had spoken to them, that He had forbidden them to go to Egypt, and that he (the prophet), by proclaiming the word of the Lord, had warned them (העיד בּ, to testify, bear witness against a person, i.e., warn him of something, cf. Jer 11:7). Thus he discloses to them the dangerous mistake they are in, when they first desire some expression of the mind of the Lord regarding their intentions, and, in the hope that He will accede to their request, promise unconditional obedience to whatever He may direct, but afterwards, when they have received a message from the Lord, will not obey it, because it is contrary to what they wish. The Kethib התעתים has been incorrectly written for התעיים, the Hiphil from תּעה, to err; here, as in Pro 10:17, it means to make a mistake. בּנפשׁותיכם, not, "you mislead your own selves," decepistis animas vestras (Vulg.), nor "in your souls," - meaning, in your thoughts and intentions (Nägelsbach), - but "at the risk of your souls," your life; cf. Jer 17:21. וּלכל אשׁר (Jer 42:21), "and that in regard to all that for which Jahveh has sent me to you," points back to their promise, Jer 42:5, that they would do "according to all the word." By employing the perfect in Jer 42:20, Jer 42:21, the thing is represented as quite certain, as if it had already taken place. Jer 42:22 concludes

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1673

the warning with a renewed threat of the destruction which shall befall them for their disobedience.

Chap. 43

Verses 1-3

Jer 43:1-3The march of the people to Egypt. - When Jeremiah had thus ended all the words which the Lord had announced to him for the people, then came forward Azariah (probably an error for Jezaniah, see on Jer 42:1) the son of Hoshaiah, Johanan the son of Kareah, and the rest of the insolent men, and said to Jeremiah, "Thou dost utter falsehood; Jahveh our God hath not sent thee unto us, saying, Ye must not go to Egypt to sojourn there; Jer 43:3. But Baruch the son of Neriah inciteth thee against us, in order to give us into the hand of the Chaldeans, to kill us, and to take us captive to Babylon." אמרים is not the predicate to כּל־האנשׁים, but forms a resumption of ויּאמר, with which it thus serves to connect its object, Jeremiah, and from which it would otherwise be pretty far removed. Azariah (or, more correctly, Jezaniah) occupies the last place in the enumeration of the captains, Jer 40:8, and in Jer 42:1 is also named after Johanan, who is the only one specially mentioned, in what follows, as the leader on the march. From this we may safely conclude that Jezaniah was the chief speaker and the leader of the opposition against the prophet. To avoid any reference to the promise they had made to obey the will of God, they declare that Jeremiah's prophecy is an untruth, which had been suggested to him, not by God, but by his attendant Baruch, with the view of delivering up the people to the Chaldeans.

Verses 4-7

Thereupon Johanan and the other captains took "all the remnant of Judah, that had returned from all the nations whither they had been driven, to dwell in the land of Judah-the men and women and children, the king's daughters, and all the souls whom Nebuzaradan, chief of the body-guard, had committed to Gedaliah...and Jeremiah the prophet, and Baruch the son of Neriah, - and went to the land of Egypt - for they did not hearken to the voice of Jahveh - and came to Tahpanhes." In this enumeration of those who were conducted to Egypt, Hitzig, Graf, and others distinguish two classes:

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1674

(1) the men, women, children, etc., who had been in Mizpah with Gedaliah, and had been led to Gibeon, after the murder of the latter, by Ishmael, but had afterwards been brought to Bethlehem by Johanan and the other captains (Jer 43:6, cf. Jer 40:7; Jer 41:10, Jer 41:16); (2) those who had returned from the foreign countries whither they had fled, but who had hitherto lived in the country, scattered here and there, and who must have joined the company led by Johanan to Bethlehem during the ten days of halt at that resting-place (Jer 43:5, cf. Jer 40:11-12). There is no foundation, however, for this distinction. Neither in the present chapter is there anything mentioned of those who had been dispersed through the land joining those who had marched to Bethlehem; nor are the Jews who had returned from Moab, Ammon, Edom, and other countries to their own home distinguished, in Jer 40 and 41, as a different class from those who had been with Gedaliah in Mizpah; but on the other hand, according to Jer 40:12, these returned Jews also came to Gedaliah at Mizpah, and gathered grapes and fruit. Besides, in these verses the distinction can only be made after the insertion into the text of the conjunction ו before את־הגּברים. To "all the remnant of Judah who had returned from the nations" belong the men, women, children, etc., whom Nebuzaradan had committed to the care of Gedaliah. The enumeration in Jer 43:6 gives only one specification of the "whole remnant of Judah," as in Jer 41:16. "And all the souls;" as if it were said, "and whoever else was still left alive;" cf. Jos 10:28. Tahpanhes was a frontier town of Egypt on the Pelusian branch of the Nile, and named Δάφναι by the Greeks; see on Jer 2:16. Here, on the borders of Egypt, a halt was made, for the purpose of coming to further resolutions regarding their residence in that country. Here, too, Jeremiah received a revelation from God regarding the fate now impending on Egypt.

Verses 8-11

Jer 43:8-11Prediction regarding Egypt. - Jer 43:8. "And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah in Tahpanhes, saying, Jer 43:9. Take in thine hand large stones, and hide them in the clay in the brick-kiln, which is at the entrance to the house of Pharaoh in Taphanhes, in the eyes of the Jews; Jer 43:10. And say to them: Thus saith Jahveh of hosts, the God of Israel,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1675

Behold, I will send and take Nebuchadrezzar, the king of Babylon, my servant, and will place his throne over these stones which I have hidden, and he shall stretch his tapestry over them. Jer 43:11. And he shall come and smite the land of Egypt, (he who is) for death, to death, - (he who is) for captivity, to captivity, - (he who is) for the sword, to the sword. Jer 43:12. And I will kindle fire in the houses of the gods of Egypt, and he shall burn them and carry them away; and he shall wrap the land of Egypt round him as the shepherd wraps his cloak round him, and thence depart in peace. Jer 43:13. And he shall destroy the pillars of Beth-shemesh, which is in the land of Egypt, and the houses of the gods of the Egyptians shall he burn with fire."
This prophecy is introduced by a symbolical action, on which it is based. But in spite of the fact that the object of the action is stated in the address which follows, the action itself is not quite plain from the occurrence of בּמּלבּן, whose usual meaning, "brick-kiln" (cf. Nah 3:14), does not seem suitable here. Eichhorn and Hitzig think it absurd that there should be found before the door of a royal habitation a brick-kiln on which a king was to place his throne. From the Arabic malbin, which also signifies a rectangular figure like tile or brick, and is used of the projecting entablature of doors, - from the employment, also, in the Talmud of the word מלבּן to signify a quadrangular tablet in the form of a tile, - Hitzig would claim for the word the meaning of a stone floor, and accordingly renders, "and insert them with mortar into the stone flooring." But the entablatures over doors, or quadrangular figures like bricks, are nothing like a stone flooring or pavement before a palace. Besides, in the way of attaching to the word the signification of a "brick-kiln," - a meaning which is well established, - or even of a brickwork, the difficulties are not so great as to compel us to accept interpretations that have no foundation. We do not need to think of a brick-kiln or brickwork as being always before the palace; as Neumann has observed, it may have indeed ben there, although only for a short time, during the erecting of some part of the palace; nor need it have been just at the palace gateway, but a considerable distance away from it, and

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1676

on the opposite side. Alongside of it there was lying mortar, an indispensable building material. טמן, "to hide," perhaps means here not merely to embed, but to embed in such a way that the stones could not very readily be perceived. Jeremiah was to press down the big stones, not into the brick-kiln, but into the mortar which was lying at (near) the brick-kiln, - to put them, too, before the eyes of the Jews, inasmuch as the meaning of this act had a primary reference to the fate of the Jews in Egypt. The object of the action is thus stated in what follows: Jahveh shall bring the king of Babylon and set his throne on these stones, so that he shall spread out his beautiful tapestry over them. שׁפרוּר (Qeri שׁפריר), an intensive form of שׁפר, שׁפרה, "splendour, beauty," signifies a glittering ornament, - here, the decoration of the throne, the gorgeous tapestry with which the seat of the throne was covered. The stones must thus form the basis for the throne, which the king of Babylon will set up in front of the palace of the king of Egypt at Tahpanhes. But the symbolical meaning of this action is not thereby exhausted. Not merely is the laying of the stones significant, but also the place where they are laid, - at the entrance, or opposite Pharaoh's palace. This palace was built of tiles or bricks: this is indicated by the brick-kiln and the mortar. The throne of the king of Babylon, on the contrary, is set up on large stones. The materials of which the palace and the throne are formed, shadow forth the strength and stability of the kingdom. Pharaoh's dominion is like crumbling clay, the material of bricks; the throne which Nebuchadnezzar shall set up opposite the clay-building of the Pharaohs rests on large stones, - his rule will be powerful and permanent. According to Jeremiah's further development of the symbol in Jer 43:11., Nebuchadnezzar will come to Egypt (the Kethib באה is to be read בּאה, "he came down," to Egypt, בּוא being construed with the accus.), and will smite the land together with its inhabitants, so that every man will receive his appointed lot, viz., death by pestilence, imprisonment, and the sword, i.e., death in battle. On the mode of representation here, cf. Jer 15:2.

Verse 12

He shall burn the temples of the gods of Egypt, and carry away the idols. The first person הצּתּי, for which lxx, Syriac, and Vulgate have the third, must not be meddled with;

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1677

it corresponds to שׂמתּי in Jer 43:10. What Nebuchadnezzar does as Jahveh's servant (עבדּי, Jer 43:10) is done by God. The suffixes in שׂרפם and שׁבּם are assigned in such a way that the one is to be referred to the temples, the other to the idols; see on Jer 48:7. - ועטה has been variously interpreted. עטה with the accus. מעיל or שׂלמה means the envelope one's self with a garment, put on a garment, wrap the cloak round; cf. 1Sa 28:14; Psa 109:19; Isa 59:17, etc. This is the meaning of the verb here, as is shown by the clause expressing the comparison. The point of likeness is the easiness of the action. Ewald has very well explained the meaning of the whole: "As easily as any shepherd in the open field wraps himself in his cloak, so will he take the whole of Egypt in his hand, and be able to throw it round him like a light garment, that he may then, thus dressed as it were with booty, leave the land in peace, without a foe, - a complete victor." Other explanations of the word are far-fetched, and lexically untenable.

Verse 13

In conclusion, mention is further made of the destruction of the famous temple of the Sun at Heliopolis, to show the fulfilment of the prophecy that all Egypt would fall under the power of Nebuchadnezzar. בּית שׁמשׁ, "House of the Sun," is the Hebrew rendering of the Egyptian Pe - râ, i.e., House of the Sun, the sacred name of the city vulgarly called On; see on Gen 41:45. It lay north-east from Cairo, near the modern village of Matarieh, and thus pretty far inland; it was renowned for its magnificent temple, dedicated to Râ, the Sun-god. At the entrance to this building stood several larger and smaller obelisks, of which the two larger, added to the two older ones by Pheron the son of Sesostris, were about 150 feet high. One of these the Emperor Augustus caused to be brought to Rome; the other was thrown down in the year 1160; while one of the more ancient but smaller obelisks still stands in its original position, raising its head in the midst of a beautiful garden over a mass of dense foliage. These obelisks are signified by מצּבות. The additional clause, "which is in the land of Egypt," does not belong to Beth-shemesh, as if it were appended for the purpose of distinguishing the city so named from Beth-shemesh in the land of Judah; the words are rather connected with מצּבות, and correspond with אלהי מצרים in the parallel member of the verse. The obelisks

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1678

of the most famous temple of the Egyptian Sun-god are well known as the most splendid representatives of the glory of the Egyptian idolatry: the destruction of these monuments indicates the ruin of all the sanctuaries of the ancient kingdom of the Pharaohs. The last clause is a kind of re-echo from Jer 43:12; ישׂרף is strengthened by the addition of בּאשׁ for the purpose of giving a sonorous ending to the whole. - The king of Egypt is not named in the prophecy, but according to Jer 44:30 it is Pharaoh-Hophra, who is to be given into the power of Nebuchadnezzar.
When we inquire as to the fulfilment of this prediction, we find M. Duncker, in his Gesch. des Alterthums, i. 841, giving a reply in these words: "Nebuchadnezzar did not fulfil these expectations (of Jeremiah, Jer 43:8-13; Jer 44:30, and of Ezekiel, Jer 29:32). He contented himself with having repelled the renewed attack of Egypt. The establishment of his dominion in Syria did not depend on his conquering Egypt; but Syria must obey him, throughout its whole extent. The capture of Jerusalem followed the siege of the island-town of Tyre (b.c. 586), the last city that had maintained its independence. The army of the Chaldean slay thirteen years before Tyre without being able to bring the king Ethbaal (Ithobal) under subjection. At last, in the year 573, a treaty was concluded, in which the Tyrians recognised the supremacy of the king of Babylon." That Tyre was brought into subjection is inferred by Duncker (in a note, p. 682), first, from the generally accepted statement of Berosus, that the whole of Phoenicia was subdued by Nebuchadnezzar (Josephus' Ant. x. 11. 1, and contra Ap. i. 19); secondly, from Josephus' statement (contra Ap. i. 21), that the kings Merbal and Hiram had been brought by the Tyrians from Babylon; and lastly, from the fact that, with the close of the siege, the reign of Ithobal ends and that of Baal begins. "It would thus appear that Ithobal was removed, and his family carried to Babylon." These facts, which are also acknowledged by Duncker, sufficiently show (what we have already pointed out in Ezekiel) that the siege of Tyre ended with the taking of this island-city. For, unless the besieged city had been taken by storm, or at least compelled to surrender, the king would not have let himself be dethroned

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1679

and carried to Babylon. - But whence has Duncker derived the information that Nebuchadnezzar had no concern with the subjugation of Egypt, but merely with the establishment of his authority in Syria? Although Nebuchadnezzar began the siege of the island-city of Tyre soon after the destruction of Jerusalem, and required thirteen years to reduce it, yet it does not by any means follow from this that he had only to do with the strengthening of his authority in Syria, and no connection with the subjugation of Egypt; all that we can safely infer is, that he thought he could not attempt the conquest of Egypt with any certain prospect of success until he had subdued the whole of Syria. Besides, so long as such an one as Pharaoh-Hophra occupied the throne of Egypt, - who had not only sent an army to Zedekiah king of Judah to raise the siege of Jerusalem, but also (according to Herodotus, ii. 161, who draws from Egyptian sources) led an army to Sidon and fought a naval battle with the Tyrians; who (as Diod. Sic. i. 68 relates, also following Egyptian tradition) set out for Cyprus with abundant war-material and a strong army and fleet, and took Sidon by storm, while the rest of the towns submitted through fear; who, moreover, had defeated the Phoenicians and Cyprians in a naval engagement, and had returned to Egypt with immense spoil; - how could Nebuchadnezzar possibly think that his rule in Syria was firmly established? Such statements as those now referred to even Duncker does not venture to reject. We must, however, view them with a regard to the usual exaggerations by which the Egyptians were accustomed to extol the deeds of their Pharaohs; but after making all due allowance, we are led to this, that, after the fall of Tyre, Hophra sought to prevent the island of Cyprus as well as Tyre from becoming a dependency of Nebuchadnezzar. Could Nebuchadnezzar leave unmolested such an enemy as this, who, on the first suitable opportunity, would attempt to wrest the whole of Syria from him? So short-sighted a policy we could not attribute to such a conqueror as Nebuchadnezzar. Much more considerate is the judgment previously expressed regarding this by Vitringa, on Isa 19: "Etiamsi omnis historia hic sileret, non est probabile, Nebucadnezarem magnum dominatorem gentium, post Palaestinam et Phoeniciam subactam, non tentasse Aegyptum,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1680

et si tentaverit, tentasse frustra; et quâ parte Aegyptum occupavit, eam non vastasse et desolasse."
It is also to be borne in mind that the conquest of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar, which is denied by Hitzig and Graf as well as Duncker, as it formerly was by Volney, is vouched for by the trustworthy testimony of Berosus (in Josephus, contra Ap. i. 19), who says that Nebuchadnezzar took Egypt (κρατῆσαι Αἰγύπτου,  ̓Αραβίας, κ.τ.λ.); the denial, too, rests on a mere inference from the account given by Herodotus from the traditions of the priests regarding the reign of Apriës (Hophra). If the witness of Berosus regarding the conquest of Syria and Phoenicia be trustworthy, why should his testimony concerning Egypt be unreliable? The account of Josephus (Ant. x. 9. 7), that Nebuchadnezzar, in the fifth year after the capture of Jerusalem, and the twenty-third year of his reign, invaded Egypt, killed the king (Hophra), put another in his place, and led captive to Babylon the Jews that had fled to Egypt, - this account will not admit of being brought forward (as has often been attempted, and anew, of late, by Mrc. von Niebuhr, Assur und Babel, S. 215) as sufficient testimony for a successful campaign carried on by Nebuchadnezzar against Egypt during the siege of Tyre. The difficulty in the way of proving that such a campaign actually took place is not so much that the death of Hophra in battle with Nebuchadnezzar, or his execution afterwards, contradicts all authenticated history, as that the particular statements of Josephus regarding this campaign, both as to the date and the carrying away to Babylon of the Jews that had fled to Egypt, are simply conclusions drawn from a combination of Jer 43:8-13 and Jer 44:30 with Jer 52:20; besides, the execution of King Hophra by Nebuchadnezzar is foretold neither by Jeremiah nor by Ezekiel. Ezekiel, in Jer 29-32, merely predicts the decline of the Egyptian influence, the breaking of the arm of Pharaoh, i.e., of his military power, and his fall into Sheol; but he does it in so ideal a manner, that even the words of Jer 30:13, "there shall be no more a prince out of the land of Egypt," - i.e., Egypt shall lose all her princes, just as her idols have been destroyed, - even these words cannot well be applied to the execution of Pharaoh-Hophra. But Jeremiah, in Jer 43:1-13 and in Jer 46:13., predicts merely

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1681

the downfall of the pride and power of Pharaoh, and the conquest, devastation, and spoiling of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar. And even in the words of Jer 44:30, "I (Jahveh) will deliver Pharaoh-Hophra into the hand of his enemies, and of those who seek his life, just as I delivered Zedekiah the king of Judah into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar his enemy, and of those who sought after his life," there is nothing definitely stated regarding Hophra's being executed by Nebuchadnezzar, or killed in battle with him. Such a reference cannot be made out from the words, even though we lay no emphasis on the plural "his enemies," in contrast with the expression "Nebuchadnezzar his enemy," and, according to Jer 46:26, understand Nebuchadnezzar and his servants as being included under the "enemies;" for certainly Zedekiah was not killed by Nebuchadnezzar, but merely taken prisoner and carried to Babylon. Besides, there was no need of special proof that the prophecies of Jeremiah regarding Egypt declare much more important matters than merely an expedition of Chaldean soldiers to Egypt, as well as the plunder of some cities and the carrying away of the Jews who resided there; and that, in Jer 44, what the Jews who went to Egypt against the will of God are threatened with, is not transportation to Babylon, but destruction in Egypt by sword, hunger, and pestilence, until only a few individuals shall escape, and these shall return to Judah (Jer 44:14, Jer 44:27-28).
But if we compare with the prophecy of Jeremiah in Jer 43:8-13, and in Jer 46:13-26, that of Ezekiel in Jer 29:17-21, which was uttered or composed in the twenty-seventh year of the captivity of Jehoiachin, i.e., in the year 573, it becomes abundantly evident that Nebuchadnezzar cannot have invaded and conquered Egypt before that year, and not till after the fall of Tyre, which immediately ensued. And that this was actually the case, is put beyond doubt by the statement of Herodotus, ii. 161ff., regarding Apriës, that he lost his throne and his life in consequence of being defeated in battle with the Cyrenians. What Herodotus assigns as the cause of the fall of Apriës, is insufficient to account for the unhappy end of this king. Herodotus himself states, ii. 169, that the Egyptians were filled with the most intense hatred

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1682

against Apriës; the monuments also bear witness to this fact. This bitter feeling must have had a deeper source than merely the unsuccessful issue of a war with Cyrene; it receives its explanation only when we find that Apriës, by his attempts against Nebuchadnezzar, had deserved and brought on the subjugation of Egypt by the king of Babylon; cf. Hävernick on Ezekiel, p. 500. By sending an auxiliary army to Judah, for the purpose of driving back the Chaldeans, and by forming an expedition to Cyprus and the cities of Phoenicia, which was evidently directed against the establishment of the Chaldean power in Phoenicia, Apriës had so provoked the king of Babylon, that the latter, immediately after the subjugation of Tyre, entered on the campaign against Egypt, which he invaded, subdued, and spoiled, without, however, killing the king; him he preferred allowing to rule on, but as his vassal, and under the promise that he would recognise his authority and pay tribute, just as had been done with King Jehoiakim when Jerusalem was first taken. If all this actually took place (which we may well assume), Apriës might probably have begun another war against Cyrene, after the Chaldeans had departed, in the hope of procuring some small compensation to the Egyptians for the defeat they had suffered from the Chaldeans, by subduing that province in the west; in this war the king might have lost his life, as Herodotus relates, through want of success in his attempt. In this say, the account of Herodotus regarding the death of Apriës quite agrees with the conquest of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar. But that Herodotus makes no mention of the conquest of Egypt, is sufficiently accounted for when we remember that he derived his information from the stories of the priests, who carefully omitted all mention of a struggle between Egypt and the power of Chaldea, since this had ended in the humiliation of Egypt; hence also mention was made only of the victories and mighty deeds of Necho II, while his defeat at Carchemish was passed over in silence. Warning Against Idolatry, and Intimation of Its Punishment
When the Jews had settled down in Egypt in different places, they betook themselves zealously to the worship of the

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1683

queen of heaven; to this they were probably induced by the example of the heathen round about them, and by the vain expectation of thereby promoting their interests as members of the community (cf. Jer 44:17.). Accordingly, when all the people who were living here and there through the country had assembled in Upper Egypt (Jer 44:15) for the celebration of the festival, the prophet seized the opportunity of setting before them, in an earnest manner, the ruinous consequences of their doings. First of all, he reminds them of the judgments which they and their fathers, by their continued apostasy from the Lord, and by their idolatry, had brought on Jerusalem and Judah (Jer 44:2-7); and he warns them not to bring destruction on the remnant of Judah still left, by continuing in their idolatry (Jer 44:8-10). The threatening also is expressed, that the Lord will destroy all those who marched to Egypt with the sword, famine, and pestilence (Jer 44:11-14). But the whole assembly declare to him that they will not obey his word, but persist in worshipping the queen of heaven; alleging that their fathers prospered so long as they honoured her, and war and famine had come on them only after they ceased to do so (Jer 44:15-19). Jeremiah refutes this false notion (Jer 44:20-23), and once more solemnly announces to them the sentence of destruction by sword and famine in Egypt. As a sign that the Lord will keep His word, he finally predicts that King Hophra shall be delivered into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar.

Chap. 44

Verse 1

Jer 44:1"The word that came to Jeremiah regarding all the Jews who were living in the land of Egypt, who dwelt in Migdol, in Tahpanhes, in Noph, and in the land of Pathros." From this heading we perceive that those who (according to Jer 43:1-13) had gone to Egypt, had settled there in various parts of the country, and that the following denunciations, which at the same time form his last prophecy, were uttered a long time after that which is given in Jer 43:8-13 as having been delivered at Tahpanhes. The date of it cannot, indeed, be determined exactly. From the threatening that King Hophra shall be delivered over to the power of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 44:24-30), only this much is clear, that Egypt was not yet occupied by the Chaldeans, which, as we have shown above

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1684

(p. 353), did not take place before the year 572. But it by no means follows from this that Jeremiah did not utter these words of threatening till shortly before this event. He may have done so even five or ten years before, in the period between 585 and 580, as we have already observed on p. 12. The Jews had settled down, not merely in the two northern frontier towns, Migdol (i.e., Magdolo, Μαγδώλος, according to the Itiner. Anton., twelve Roman miles from Pelusium, Copt. Meschtôl, Egypt. Ma'ktr, the most northerly place in Egypt; see on Eze 29:10) and Tahpanhes (i.e., Daphne, see on Jer 43:7), but also in more inland places, in Noph (i.e., Memphis, see on Jer 2:16) and the land of Pathros (lxx Παθούρης, Egypt. Petorees, i.e., Southland, viz., Upper Egypt, the Thebais of the Greeks and Romans; see on Eze 29:14). The word of the Lord runs as follows: -

Verses 2-14

Jer 44:2-14The warning and threatening. - "Thus saith Jahveh of hosts, the God of Israel: Ye yourselves have been all the evil which I have brought on Jerusalem, and on all the cities of Judah; and, behold, they are a desolation this day, and there is no inhabitant in them; Jer 44:3. Because of their wickedness which they have done, by provoking me through going to burn incense, (and) to serve other gods whom they knew not, (neither) they (nor) ye, nor your fathers. Jer 44:4. And I sent unto you all my servants the prophets, rising early and sending (them), to say, Do not this abominable thing which I hate. Jer 44:5. But they did not hear, nor inclined their ear to turn from their wickedness, by not burning incense to other gods. Jer 44:6. Therefore my wrath and mine anger poured itself out, and burned up the cities of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem; so that they have become a desolation and a waste, as at this day. Jer 44:7. Now therefore thus saith Jahveh of hosts, the God of Israel: Why do ye great evil against your souls, by cutting off from yourselves man and women, child and suckling, out of the midst of Judah, so leaving no remnant for yourselves; Jer 44:8. Through provoking me by the works of your hands, burning incense to other gods in the land of Egypt, whither ye have gone to sojourn, that ye might bring destruction on yourselves, and that ye might become a curse and a reproach among all the nations of the

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1685

earth? Jer 44:9. Have ye forgotten the evil deeds of your fathers, and the evil deeds of the kings of Judah, and the evil deeds of their wives, and your own evil deeds, and the evil deeds of your wives, which they committed in the land of Judah and on the streets of Jerusalem? Jer 44:10.They have not been contrite to this day, and are not afraid, nor do they walk in my law, and in my statutes, which I have set before you and before your fathers. Jer 44:11.Therefore thus saith Jahveh of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I will set my face against you for evil, and to cut off all Judah. Jer 44:12.And I will take the remnant of Judah, that have set their faces to go to the land of Egypt in order to sojourn there, and they shall all be consumed; in the land of Egypt shall they fall, by sword and famine shall they be consumed; small and great, by sword and famine shall they die, and they shall become an execration and an astonishment, and a curse and a reproach. Jer 44:13.And I will punish those who dwell in the land of Egypt, as I punished Jerusalem, by sword, and famine, and pestilence. Jer 44:14.There shall not be one escaped or left to the remnant of Judah that came to sojourn there in the land of Egypt, so as to return to the land of Judah, whither they long to return and dwell; for they shall not return except as escaped ones."

Verses 2-6

In order to make an impression on the people by his warning against idolatry, Jeremiah begins his address with a reference to the great calamity which the fathers have brought on the kingdom of Judah through their continued idolatry (Jer 44:2-6). "Ye have seen all the evil," etc.; all the cities are laid waste and depopulated, because their inhabitants have roused the anger of the Lord, and have not let themselves be dissuaded by the admonitions of the prophets whom God has sent. "This day," i.e., now, at present. On Jer 44:3, cf. Jer 11:17; Jer 19:4; Jer 32:32, etc.; and as to the meaning of קטּר, see on Jer 1:16. In Jer 44:3 the address becomes more direct, through the change into the second person, "ye;" the audience then present only continue these sins of their fathers. On Jer 44:4, cf. Jer 7:25; Jer 25:4, etc. דּבר התּעבה הזּאת, "the thing of this abomination," which is equivalent to "this abominable idolatry." דּבר serves to render the subject more prominent, as in Jdg 19:24. On Jer 44:6, cf. Jer 42:18; Jer 7:20. The wrath

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1686

of God burned in the cities, for the fire of destruction was a manifestation of the divine wrath. As to כּיום הזּה, see on Jer 11:5.

Verses 7-14

In Jer 44:7-10 follows the application of what has been said to those present, who are asked how they come to continue in the old sins, to their own destruction, "doing evil in regard to your souls," i.e., for the injury, destruction of your souls, yourself; cf. Jer 26:19, where על־נ' stands for אל־נ'. This is immediately afterwards more exactly specified by 'להכרית וגו, to exterminate the whole of you, without an exception. As to the enumeration "man and woman," etc., cf. 1Sa 15:3; 1Sa 22:19. The infs. להכעיסני and לקטּר are used as gerundives: "inasmuch as (through this that) ye provoke me." For the expression "the works of your hands," see on Jer 1:16. In Jer 44:8, an object must be supplied from Jer 44:7 for the expression למען הכרית לכם; for, to take לכם (with Hitzig) in a reflexive sense is a very harsh construction. On 'לקללה וגו, cf. Jer 42:18; Jer 26:6. The answer to the question now asked follows in Jer 44:9 and Jer 44:10, in the form of the further question, whether they have forgotten those former sins, and that these sins have been the cause of the evil which has befallen the land. The interrogation expresses the reproach that they have been able to forget both, as is evidenced by their continuance in sin. In Jer 44:9, the expression "the evil deeds of his wives" (נשׁיו) is remarkable. Hitzig and Nägelsbach, following Kimchi, refer the suffix to the kings, since there was always but one king at a time. But this is an unnatural explanation; the suffix refers to Judah as a nation, and is used in order to comprehend the wives of the fathers and of the kings together. It is quite arbitrary in Ewald and Graf to change נשׁיו to שׂריו, following the lxx τῶν ἀρχόντων ὑμῶν; for these translators have mutilated the text by the omission of the following ואת רעתיכם. רעות נשׁיו is not merely conserved, but even required, by ואת רעת נשׁיכם. But the prophet gives special prominence to the evil deeds of the wives, since it was they who were most zealous in worshipping the queen of heaven; cf. Jer 44:15 and Jer 44:19. לא דכּאוּ, "they have not been crushed," viz., by repentance and sorrow for these sins. The transition to the third person is not merely accounted for by the fact that the subject treated of is the sins of the fathers and of the present generation, - for,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1687

as is shown by the expression "till this day," the prophet has chiefly his own contemporaries in view; but he speaks of these in the third person, to signify the indignation with which he turns away from men so difficult to reform. On the expression, "they had not walked in my law," cf. Jer 26:4; Jer 9:12. For this the Lord will punish them severely, Jer 44:11-14. All those who have fled to Egypt, with the intention of remaining there, will be quite exterminated. On "Behold, I will set my face," etc., cf. Jer 21:10. "For evil" is more exactly defined by "to cut off all Judah," i.e., those of Judah who are in Egypt, not those who are in Babylon. This limitation of the words "all Judah" is necessarily required by the context, and is plainly expressed in Jer 44:12, where "Judah" is specified as "the remnant of Judah that were determined to go to Egypt." לקחתּי has the meaning of taking away, as in Jer 15:15. ותמּוּ are to be taken by themselves; and בּארץ מצרים, as is shown by the accents, is to be attached to what follows, on which, too, the emphasis is placed; in like manner, 'בּחרב  are to be attached to the succeeding verb. The arrangement of the words, like the accumulation of sentences all expressing the same meaning, reveals the spirit of the address in which God vents His wrath. On "they shall become an execration," etc., see Jer 42:18. In Jer 44:13, Jer 44:14, the threatened extermination is further set forth. Those who dwelling Egypt shall be punished with sword, famine, and plague, like Jerusalem. The inhabitants of Egypt generally are meant; and by the judgment which is to fall on that country, the remnant of Judah there shall be so completely destroyed, that none shall escape. The leading member of the sentence is continued by ולשׁוּב, "and that they should return to the land of Judah, after which their soul longs, that they may live there." A reason is further assigned, and with this the address, reduced within becoming limits, concludes: "for there shall return none except (כּי אם) fugitives," i.e., except a few individual fugitives who shall come back. This last clause shows that we are not to understand the declaration "none shall escape" in the strictest meaning of the words. Those who escape and return to Judah shall be so few, in comparison with those who shall perish in Egypt, as to be quite inconsiderable. Cf. the like instance of a seeming contradiction in Jer 44:27, Jer 44:28. On נשּׂא את־נפשׁם, cf. Jer 22:27.

Verses 15-19

Jer 44:15-19The answer of the people to this threatening address. - Jer 44:15. "Then all the men who knew that their wives burned incense to other gods, and all the women standing [there], a great multitude, and all the people who dwelt in the land of Egypt, in Pathros, answered Jeremiah, saying, Jer 44:16. [As for] the word which thou hast spoken unto us in the name of Jahveh, we will not hearken unto thee: Jer 44:17. But we will certainly perform every word that has proceeded out of our own mouth, by burning incense to the queen of heaven, and pouring out libations to her, just as we have done, we and our fathers, our kings and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem; and we were filled with bread, and became prosperous, and saw no evil. Jer 44:18. But since we ceased to offer incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out libations to her, we have been in want of everything, and are consumed by sword and famine. Jer 44:19. And when we [women] have been burning incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out libations to her, have we made cakes to her without our husbands, making an image of her, and offering libations to her?" To the word of the prophet the men and women oppose their pretended experience, that the adoration of the queen of heaven has brought them comfort and prosperity, while the neglect of this worship, on the other hand, has brought want and misfortune. No doubt they inferred this, by the argument post hoc, ergo propter hoc, from the fact that, after idolatry had been rooted out by Josiah, adversity had befallen the land of Judah; while, up till that time, the kingdom of Judah had been independent, and, for more than a century before, had been spared the suffering of misfortune. Thus, through their blindness, peculiar to the natural man, they had overlooked the minor transient evils with which the Lord visits His people when they sin. Not till near the end of Josiah's reign did misfortune fall on Judah: this was when the Egyptian army, under Pharaoh-Necho, marched through Palestine; Josiah was slain in the battle he had lost, the land was laid waste by the enemy, and its inhabitants perished by sword and famine. In Jer 44:15, those

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1689

who are represented speaking are all the men who knew of their wives' idolatry, i.e., who permitted it, and all the women, "a great company," i.e., gathered together in great numbers, and all the rest of the people who lived in Egypt. The specification "in Pathros" is not in apposition to the words "in the land of Egypt," but belongs to the verb ויּענוּ; it tells where the gathering took place, viz., in a district of Upper Egypt. From the presence of a large number of women, we may conclude that the assembly was a festival in honour of the queen of heaven. The former portion of Jer 44:16 forms an absolute clause, from הדּבר to בּשׁם, "as regards the word which...we will not listen to thee," i.e., with regard to this word we obey thee not. The expression, "the word which has gone forth out of our mouth," points to the uttering of vows: cf. Num 30:13; Deu 23:24. 'כּל־הדּבר means "all that we have uttered as a vow," every vow to offer incense, etc., i.e., to present meat and drink offerings to the queen of heaven, - that shall we keep, fulfil, as we and our fathers have done in the land of Judah. On this mode of worship, cf. Jer 7:17., and the remarks there made. "And we were satisfied with bread," i.e., in consequence of this worship we had amply sufficient food. Towbiym טובים, "good," well, comfortable; cf. Jer 22:16. מן אז, "from that time" = since. תּמנוּ is for תּמּנוּ, from תּמם, as in Num 17:1-13 :28; cf. Ewald, §197, a. To this statement on the part of the men, the women further add, Jer 44:19, that they do not engage in this sacrificial worship or prepare the sacrificial cakes without their husbands, i.e., without their knowledge and approval. This is put forward by the women in the way of self-vindication; for, according to the law, Num 30:9., the husband could annul, i.e., declare not binding, any vow which had been made by his wife without his knowledge. Although it is women who are speaking, the masc. מקטּרים is used as being the gender which most commonly occurs; it also pretty often stands for the feminine. The inf. constr. וּלהסּך (with ל) is here employed, in conformity with later usage, instead of the inf. abs., for the finite verb, by way of continuation; cf. Ewald, §351, c, where, however, many passages have been set down as falling under this rule that demand a different explanation. The meaning of להעצבה is disputed; the

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1690

final ה is a suffix, written with Raphe, though Mappik also occurs in some MSS. The Hiphil of this verb is found elsewhere only in Psa 78:40, and there in the signification of vexing, grieving, like the Piel in Isa 63:10; Psa 66:6. Ewald translates "in order to move her," i.e., make her well-disposed, - but quite arbitrarily, for to provoke is the very opposite of rendering propitious. The verb עצּב also signifies "to form, shape," Job 10:8; and in this sense the Hiphil is used here, "in order to put them into shape," i.e., to form the moon-goddess (queen of heaven) in or on the sacrificial cakes (Kimchi, Raschi, Dahler, Maurer, Graf, etc.). The sacrificial cakes (כּוּנים, see on Jer 7:18) probably had the form of a crescent, or even of the full moon, like the σελῆναι of the Greeks, which used to be offered in Athens at the time of the full moon in the month of Munychion, to Artemis, as goddess of the moon; cf. Hermann, gottesdienstliche Alterthümer der Griechen, 2 Ausg. S. 146, Anm. 13, u. S. 414.

Verses 20-22

Jer 44:20-22Refutation of these statements of the people. - Jer 44:20. "And Jeremiah spake to all the people, to the men and women, and to all the people that had given him answer, saying, Jer 44:21. Did not the incense-burning which he performed in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem, ye and your fathers, your kings and your princes, and the people of the land-did not Jahveh remember them, and did it not arise in His mind? Jer 44:22. And Jahveh could no longer endure it, because of the wickedness of your deeds, because of the abominations which ye committed; thus your land became a desolation, and a waste, and a curse, without an inhabitant, as at this day. Jer 44:23. Because ye burned incense and sinned against Jahveh, and did not hearken to the voice of Jahveh, and in His law, in His statutes, and in His testimonies ye walked not; therefore this evil hath befallen you, as at this day." Jeremiah answers them that their idol-worship, by which they have provoked the Lord their God, is the very cause of the misfortune that has befallen them, because God could no longer endure this abomination which they would not forsake. הקּטּר is a noun, "the burning of incense," which includes, besides, all the other elements of idolatrous worship hence the word is resumed, at the close, under the plur. אותם, "these

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1691

things." ותּעלה is 3rd pers. sing. neut., lit., "it has come into His mind," i.e., He has carefully considered it, and that in the way of punishment, for He could no longer endure such abomination. The imperf. יוּכל is used for the historic tense (imperf. with ו consec.), because the ו would necessarily be separated from the verb by the לא; and it is employed instead of the perfect, which we would be inclined to expect after the preceding זכר, since that which is treated of is something that endures for a considerable time; cf. Ewald, §346, b. On the expression "because of the evil," etc., cf. Jer 21:12; Jer 4:4, etc.; on the last clause in Jer 44:22, cf. Jer 44:6 and Jer 44:12.

Verse 23

Jer 44:23 is an emphatic and brief repetition of what has already been said. קראת is for קראה, as in Deu 31:29; cf. Gesenius, §74, note 1; Ewald, §194, b.

Verses 24-28

Jer 44:24-28Announcement of the punishment for this idolatry. - Jer 44:24. "And Jeremiah said unto all the people, and unto all the women, Hear the word of Jahveh, all of Judah that are in the land of Egypt; Jer 44:25. Thus saith Jahve of hosts, the God of Israel: Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouth, and fulfilled it with your hands, saying, We will assuredly perform our vows which we have vowed, by burning incense to the queen of heaven, and by pouring out libations to her: ye will by all means perform your vows, and carry out your vows. Jer 44:26. Therefore hear the word of Jahveh, all Judah that dwell in the land of Egypt: Behold, I have sworn by my great name, saith Jahveh, truly my name shall no more be named in the mouth of any man of Judah, saying, 'As the Lord Jahveh liveth,' in all the land of Egypt. Jer 44:27. Behold, I will watch over them for evil, and not for good; and all the men of Judah that are in the land of Egypt shall be consumed by the sword and by famine, till they are annihilated. Jer 44:28. And those who escape the sword shall return out of the land of Egypt to the land of Judah, a small number; and all the remnant of Judah, that went to the land of Egypt to sojourn there, shall know whose word shall stand, mine or theirs. Jer 44:29. And this shall be the sign to you, saith Jahveh, that I will punish you in this place, that ye may know that my words shall surely rise up against you for evil: Jer 44:30.

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1692

Thus hath Jahveh spoken, Behold, I will give Pharaoh-Hophra into the hand of his enemies, and into the hand of those who seek his life, just as I have given Zedekiah the king of Judah into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, who was his enemy, and sought his life."
After refuting the false assertion of the people, Jeremiah once more announces to them, on behalf of God, in the most solemn manner, the punishment of extermination by sword and famine in Egypt; this he does for the purpose of giving the greatest possible emphasis to his warning against persevering in idolatry. For substance, this announcement is similar to that of Jer 44:11-14, but the expression is stronger. Even in the summary account of their offences, Jer 44:25, the words are so chosen and arranged as to bring out clearly the determination of the people to persevere in worshipping the queen of heaven. "As for you and your wives, ye have spoken with your mouth and fulfilled it with your hand" (on the Vav consec. attached to תּדבּרנה, cf. Ewald, §344, b), i.e., ye have uttered vows and then carried them out; for ye say, We must keep the vows that we have vowed. It is to be observed that the verbs תּדבּרנה, and in the concluding portion תּקימנה and תּעשׂינה, are feminine, since the address chiefly applies to the wives, who clung most tenaciously to idolatry. In the clause 'הקים תּקימנה וגו, "ye will make your vows and perform them," there is unmistakeable irony, in which the reference is to the wilfulness of the people in this idolatry. This ἑθελοθρησκεία is shown by the inf. abs. הקים, which strengthens תּקימנה. "To establish vows," i.e., to make them, was not a thing commanded, but left to one's free determination. Hence, also, no appeal to the maxim that vows which have been made or uttered must be fulfilled, can justify the making of the vows. The form תּקימנה for תּקמנה is an unusual one; and the י which the Hirik takes after it is occasioned by the form הקים; cf. Ewald, §196, c. - The announcement of the punishment is introduced by a solemn oath on the part of God. Jahveh swears by His great name, i.e., as the one who has shown Himself God by His mighty deeds - who has the power of keeping His word. The name is, of course, only a manifestation of His existence. אם as a particle used in swearing = certainly not. His name shall no more be named in the mouth

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1693

of any Jew in the land of Egypt, i.e., be used in asseverations, because all the Jews in Egypt shall be exterminated. On the expression, "Behold, I will watch over them," etc., cf. Jer 31:28 and Jer 21:10. In Jer 44:28, it is more exactly stated that only a few individuals shall escape the sword and return to Judah; thus, no one shall remain behind in Egypt. By this judgment, all the remnant of Judah that went to Egypt shall find out whose word - Jahveh's or theirs - will endure, i.e., prove true. ממּנּי properly depends on דבר, "the word from me or from them" (the people).

Verses 29-30

In confirmation of this threatening, the Lord gives them another sign which, when it is fulfilled, will let them know that the destruction announced to them shall certainly befall them. The token consists in the giving up of King Hophra into the hand of his enemies. As certainly as this shall take place, so certainly shall the extermination of the Jews in Egypt ensue. The name חפרע is rendered Οὐάφρις in Manetho, in the classical writers  ̓Απρίης, Apriës, who, according to Herodotus (ii. 161), reigned twenty-five years, but nineteen according to Manetho (cf. Boeckh, Manetho, etc., p. 341ff.). His death took place in the year 570 b.c. This date is reached by a comparison of the following facts: - Cambyses conquered Egypt in the year 525; and in the preceding year Amasis had died, after a reign of forty-four years (Herod. iii. 10). Hence Amasis - who took Apriës prisoner, and gave him up to the common people, who killed him (Herod. ii. 161-163, 169) - must have commenced his reign in the year 570. On the death of Apriës, or Hophra, cf. the explanation given on p. 353f., where we have shown that the words, "I will give him into the hand of his enemies, and of those who seek his life," when compared with what is said of Zedekiah, "into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar his enemy," do not require us to assume that Hophra was killed by Nebuchadnezzar, and can very well be harmonized with the notice of Herodotus regarding the death of this king.
Hitzig and Graf have taken objection to this sign given by Jeremiah, and regard Jer 44:29, Jer 44:30 as a spurious vaticinium ex eventu, the work of another hand. The reasons they urge are, that it is scarcely possible Jeremiah could have lived till 570; that Jer 44:29. would be the only place where Jeremiah offered such

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1694

a criterion; and that, even as it is, these verses contain nothing original, but, by their stiff and lifeless parallelism, are easily seen to be an artificial conclusion. Of these three arguments, the last can prove nothing, since it is merely a subjective opinion on an aesthetic point. The second, again, rather declares for than against the genuineness. For "if it were not Jeremiah's usual, elsewhere, to offer some criterion, then such an interpolation would have been all the more carefully avoided" (Nägelsbach). Of course we do not find any other signs of this kind in Jeremiah; but it does not follow from this that he could not offer such a thing in a special case. Yet the ground taken up by Nägelsbach, as sufficient to establish this position, seems quite untenable, viz., that the announcement of the fate in store for the king must have been the answer of the true God to the presumptuous boast of Apriës, mentioned by Herodotus, "that even God could not dethrone him, so firmly did he think he was established:" this view of the matter seems too remote from the object of Jeremiah's address. And finally, the first-named objection receives importance only on the supposition that "an event which was intended to serve as אות, a sign or criterion, must be something that was to happen immediately, or within a brief appointed period of time, so that a person might be able, from the occurrence of the one, to conclude that what had been foretold about a later period would as certainly take place" (Graf). But there are no sufficient grounds for this hypothesis. If no definite time be fixed for the occurrence of this sign, then it may not appear till a considerable time afterwards, and yet be a pledge for the occurrence of what was predicted for a still later period. That Jeremiah lived till the year 570 is certainly not inconceivable, but it is not likely that he uttered the prophecy now before us at the advanced age of nearly eighty years. Now, if his address is allowed to be a real prophecy, and not a mere vaticinium ex eventu, as Hitzig, looking from his dogmatic standpoint, considers it, then it must have been uttered before the year 570; but whether this was two, or five, or ten years before, makes no material difference. The address itself contains nothing to justify the assumption of Graf, that it is closely connected with the prophecy in Jer 43:8-13, and with the warning against the migration into Egypt, Jer 42.

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1695

That the Jews spoken of had not been long in Egypt, cannot be inferred from Jer 44:8, Jer 44:12, and Jer 44:18; on the contrary, the fact that they had settled down in different parts of Egypt, and had assembled at Pathros for a festival, shows that they had been living there for a considerable time before. Nor does it follow, from the statement in Jer 44:14 that they longed to return to Judah, that they had gone to Egypt some months before. The desire to return into the land of their fathers remains, in a measure, in the heart of the Jew even at the present day. After all, then, no valid reason can be assigned for doubting the genuineness of these verses.
On the fulfilment of these threatenings Nägelsbach remarks: "Every one must be struck on finding that, in Jer 44, the extermination of the Jews who dwelt in Egypt is predicted; while some centuries later, the Jews in Egypt were very numerous, and that country formed a central point for the Jewish exiles (cf. Herzog, Real-Encycl. xvii. S. 285). Alexander the Great found so many Jews in Egypt, that he peopled with Jews, in great measure, the city he had founded and called after himself (cf. Herzog, i. S. 235). How did these Jews get to Egypt? Whence the great number of Jews whom Alexander found already in Egypt? I am inclined to think that we must consider them, for the most part, as the descendants of those who had come into the country with Jeremiah. But, according to this view of the matter, Jeremiah's prophecy has not been fulfilled." Nägelsbach therefore thinks we must assume that idolatrous worship, through time, almost entirely ceased among the exiled Jews in Egypt as it did among those in Babylon, and that the Lord then, in return, as regards the penitents, repented of the evil which He had spoken against them (Jer 26:13, Jer 26:19). But this whole explanation is fundamentally wrong, since the assertion, that Alexander the Great found so many Jews in Egypt, that with them mainly he peopled the city of Alexandria which he had founded, is contrary to historic testimony. In Herzog (Real-Encycl. i. S. 235), to which Nägelsbach refers for proof on the point, nothing of the kind is to be found, but rather the opposite, viz., the following: "Soon after the foundation of Alexandria by Alexander the Great, this city became not merely the centre of Jewish Hellenism in Egypt, but generally

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1696

speaking the place of union between Oriental and Occidental Jews. The external condition of the Jews of Alexandria must, on the whole, be characterized as highly prosperous. The first Jewish settlers had, indeed, been compelled by Alexander the Great to take up their residence in the city (Josephus, Antt. xv. 3. 1); so, too, were other Jews, by Ptolemy I. or Lagi (ibid. xii. 2. 4). But both of these monarchs granted them the same rights and privileges as the Macedonians, including Greek citizenship; and in consequence of the extremely advantageous position of the city, it speedily increased in importance. A still larger number, therefore, soon went thither of their own accord, and adopted the Greek language." In this account, the quotation from Josephus, Antt. xv. 3. 1, is certainly incorrect; for neither is there in that passage any testimony borne to the measures attributed to Alexander, nor are there any other historical testimonies given from antiquity. But as little can we find any proofs that Alexander the Great found so many Jews in Egypt that he could, to a large extent, people with them the city he had founded. It is merely testified by Josephus (Antt. xi. 8. 5), and by Hecataeus in Josephus (contra Ap. i. 22; p. 457, ed. Haverc.), that Alexander had Jewish soldiers in his army; it is further evident, from a notice in Josephus, de bell. Jud. ii. 18. 7, contra Ap. ii. 4) cf. Curtius Rufus, iv. 8), that the newly founded city, even under Alexander, immediately after it was commenced, and still more under Ptolemy Lagi (cf. Josephus, Antt. xii. 1, and Hecataeus in Jos. contra Ap. i. 22, p. 455), attracted a constantly increasing multitude of Jewish immigrants. This same Ptolemy, after having subdued Phoenicia and Coele-Syria in the year 320, and taken Jerusalem also, it would seem, by a stratagem on a Sabbath day, transported many captives and hostages out of the whole country into Egypt; many, too, must have been sold at that time as slaves to the inhabitants of such a wealthy country as Egypt: see a statement in the book of Aristeas, at the end of Havercamp's edition of Josephus, ii. p. 104. In the same place, and in Josephus' Antt. xii. 1, Ptolemy is said to have armed 30,000 Jewish soldiers, placed them as garrisons in the fortresses, and granted them all the rights of Macedonian citizens (ἰσοπολιτεία). Ewald well says, History of the People of Israel,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1697

vol. iv. of second edition, p. 254: "When we further take into consideration, that, in addition to all other similar disasters which had previously befallen them, many Jews were removed to Egypt (especially by Ochus, after Egypt had been reconquered), we can easily explain how Ptolemy Philadelphus can be said to have liberated 100,000 Egyptian Jews. Aristeas' Book, p. 105." This much, at least, is proved by these various notices, - that, in order to understand how such a vast increase took place in the number of the Jews in Egypt, we do not need to regard them as the descendants of those who removed thither with Jeremiah, and so to question the fulfilment of the prophecy now before us. Jeremiah does not, of course, threaten with destruction all those Jews who live in Egypt, but only those who at that time went thither against the divine will, and there persevered in their idolatry. We do not know how great may have been the number of these immigrants, but they could hardly exceed two thousand, - perhaps, indeed, there were not so many. All these, as had been foretold them, may have perished in the conquest of Egypt by the Chaldeans, and afterwards, through the sword, famine, and pestilence; for the myriads of Jews in Egypt at the time of Ptolemy Lagi could easily have removed thither during the period of 250 years intermediate between the immigration in Jeremiah's time and the foundation of Alexandria, partly as prisoners and slaves, partly through voluntary settlement.

Chap. 45

Verses 1-4

Jer 45:1-4 "The word which Jeremiah the prophet spake to Baruch the son of Neriah, when he wrote these words in a book at the mouth of Jeremiah, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, saying, Jer 45:2. Thus saith Jahveh, the God of Israel, to thee, O Baruch: V. 3. Thou saidst, Woe to me now! for Jahveh hath added sorrow to my pain: I am weary with sighing, and no rest do I find. V. 4. Thus shalt thou say unto him, Thus saith Jahveh: Behold, what I have built I will destroy, and what I have planted I will pluck up, and that is the whole earth. V. 5. And thou seekest great things for thyself: seek them not: for,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1698

behold, I will bring evil on all flesh, saith Jahveh; but I will give thy life unto thee for booty in all places whither thou shalt go."
From the superscription in Jer 45:1, it appears that this word of God came to Baruch through Jeremiah the prophet, in the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim, when Baruch was writing out, or had written out, in a book-roll the prophecies that had been uttered by Jeremiah up till that time. It is not necessarily implied in the infin. בּכתבו that the word of God came during the transcription, while he was still engaged in writing: it may also mean, "when he was ready with the writing," had got done with it; and Hitzig is wrong when he rejects as "misleading" the view which Movers takes - "when he had written." The writing down of the addresses of Jeremiah in the year mentioned is related in Jer 36; ; thus the substance of this chapter and that of Jer 36 agree. "These words" can only be the addresses (words) of Jeremiah which Baruch was then writing down. From this, Hitzig, Graf, Nägelsbach, and others, infer that this small piece was the last in the copy of Jeremiah's prophecies originally prepared under Jehoiakim, - if not of the first one which was intended to be read in the temple, at least of the second copy which was made after the former one had been destroyed; and that it was only after the collection had been enlarged to the extent of the collection handed down to us, that this portion was affixed as an appendix to the end of the prophecies of Jeremiah which relate to his own country. But this inference is not a valid one. "These words" are the addresses of the prophet in general, which Baruch wrote down; and that only those which were uttered up to the fourth year of Jehoiakim are intended, is implied, not in the demonstrative "these," but in the date given afterwards, by which "these" is further specified. In Jer 45:1 it is merely stated that at that time the word of God, given below, came to Jeremiah, and through Him to Baruch, but not that Baruch wrote down this also on that occasion, and appended it to the roll of Jeremiah's prophecies which had been prepared at his dictation. It may have been written down much later, possibly not till the whole of Jeremiah's prophecies were collected and arranged in Egypt. Moreover, the position occupied by this chapter in the collection shows

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1699

that this message of comfort to Baruch was added as an appendix to those predictions of Jeremiah which concern Judah and Israel.
The occasion for this message of comfort addressed to the prophet's attendant is pointed out in Jer 45:3, in the words which Baruch had uttered: "Woe to me! for Jahveh adds sorrow to my pain." Baruch felt "pain," i.e., pain of soul, at the moral corruption of the people, their impenitence and obduracy in sin and vice, just like the prophet himself, Jer 15:18. To this pain God adds sorrow, by threatening the judgment which shall fall on Judah for sin, and which was even then beginning to break over the land; cf. Jer 8:18. Baruch sighs over this till he is wearied, and finds no rest; cf. Lam 5:5. "I am weary with my sighing," is a reminiscence from Psa 6:7. This sorrow in addition to his pain was not caused in him for the first time by writing down the discourses of the prophet, but was rather thus freshened and increased. The answer of the Lord to this sighing is of a stern character, yet soothing for Baruch. The sentence of destruction has been determined on. What the Lord has built He will now destroy: it is not said why, since the reason was sufficiently known from the prophet's utterances. As to the expression in Jer 45:4, cf. Jer 1:10; Jer 31:28. The destruction regards the whole earth, היא  ואת־כּל־הארץ, lit., "and as regards the whole earth, it is it," namely that I destroy. On the employment of את in introducing the subject, cf. Dan 9:13; Hag 2:5, and Ewald, §277 d. כּל־הארץ does not mean "the whole land," but "the whole earth:" this is indubitably evident from the parallel "upon all flesh," Jer 45:5, i.e., the whole of humanity, as in Jer 25:31. The sentence is passed on all the earth, in accordance with the announcement made in Jer 25:15.

Verse 5

But when the judgment extends over the whole of humanity, an individual man cannot ask for anything great. "To seek for great things," i.e., to ask for things which in general or under certain circumstances are unattainable (cf. Psa 131:1), is here used with reference to worldly prosperity. When the whole world is visited with judgment, an individual man must not make great demands, but be content with saving his life. This is promised to Baruch in Jer 45:5, to alleviate his pain

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1700

and sorrow. "To give life to any one for booty," means to let him escape with his life; cf. Jer 21:9; Jer 38:2; Jer 39:18. In the words, "in all places whither thou shalt go," it is intimated that he will be obliged to avoid destruction by flight, but will thereby save his life. IV. Prophecies Directed Against Foreign Nations - Jeremiah 46-51
Like Amos, Isaiah, and Ezekiel, Jeremiah has uttered predictions concerning a number of heathen nations, and incorporated them with the collection of his prophecies regarding Judah and Israel. But while in Amos the utterances regarding six nations round about the kingdom of God, as representatives of the whole heathen world, merely pave the way for announcing judgment on Judah and Israel, and are given for the purpose of teaching the necessity for judgment on the whole world that is opposed to God, in order that the kingdom of God may be advanced; Isaiah, on the other hand, when the power of Assyria appeared against the kingdom of God, brought forward the thought, in a pretty long series of oracles against the nations, Jer 13-23, that all kingdoms and peoples, cities and men of the world that had apostatized from God, and still continued in apostasy, shall be humbled, and compelled by judgments inflicted on them to seek refuge with the God of Israel, - to submit to Him, and to offer their gifts for the establishment of His kingdom; and he concludes this announcement with an apocalyptic description of the judgment on the whole earth, and the consummation of the kingdom of God in glory, Jer 24-27. The object aimed at by Ezekiel and Jeremiah in their oracles against the heathen nations is more specific. Ezekiel, in view of the destruction of Jerusalem and the kingdom of Judah, directs a series of oracles against seven nations; and in these addresses he predicts the destruction of the heathen world, and the fall of all heathen powers into Sheol, in order that these may not exult over the fall of the people of God, but rather, in the judgment on Israel, recognise the omnipotence and justice of the Lord, the Judge of all the earth. And Jeremiah, in his addresses to the nations, Jer 46-51,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1701

merely brings out more fully the execution of that sentence which he had already proclaimed (Jer 25) to all the peoples and kingdoms of the earth, shortly before the appearance of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon in the fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign. The multitude of nations and tribes, far and near, to which, in Jer 25:17-26, he gives the cup of the divine wrath out of Jahveh's hand, is in Jer 46-51 reduced to nine nations; and these are named in such order, that here, as there (Jer 25), ), Egypt heads the list (Jer 46), ), while Babylon closes it (Jer 50; 51). Of the rest of these nations, those related to Israel, viz., Moabites, Ammonites, and Edomites, have special prophecies addressed to them, Jer 48 and Jer 49:1-22; but the others are more summarily addressed. Thus, in the oracle pronounced against the Philistines, the Phoenicians also (Tyre and Sidon) are threatened with extermination (Jer 47:1-7); the many Arabian tribes severally named in Jer 25 are comprehended under the general designations "Kedar" and "the kingdoms of Hazor" (Jer 49:28-33); while the kingdoms of the north are represented by Damascus (Jer 49:23-27), and the distant nations of the east (Media and Elam) by Elam, Jer 49:34-39.
Ewald, Hitzig, Graf, and Nägelsbach would account for several smaller nations being taken together in one prophecy, on the ground that the prophet wished to make out the significant number seven, - just as Amos (Amos 1:1-2:5) brings forward seven kingdoms before his address is directed to Israel, and as Ezekiel also has arranged his prophecies against the nations in accordance with the number seven. But though the number seven plainly appears in Amos and Ezekiel, such an assumption cannot be established in the case of Jeremiah. To make out this number, the oracles against Elam and Babylon are viewed as later additions, on the ground that both of them are connected with the first years of the reign of Zedekiah. But the assertion that the first seven belong to the fourth year of Jehoiakim cannot be proved. The second prophecy regarding Egypt (Jer 46:14-28), and that against the Philistines (Jer 47:1-7), contain, in their headings, indications of the time of composition, which do not point to the fourth year of Jehoiakim. With this also accords the remark further brought to bear on the alleged

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1702

composition of those seven prophecies in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, - that this follows, not merely from the general agreement of their contents with Jer 46 as well as with Jer 25, but also from the fact that "the same expressions which the prophet uses in Jer 25 with reference to the judgment of all nations, are re-echoed in Jer 46-49:33: e.g., cf Jer 25:31, Jer 25:34, with Jer 46:10; Jer 25:35 with Jer 46:5-6; Jer 25:29, Jer 25:31, with Jer 47:6-7; and particularly Jer 25:28-29, with Jer 49:12 (Caspari on Obadiah, p. 16): cf. also Jer 25:27 with Jer 48:26; Jer 25:30 with Jer 48:33; Jer 25:34 with Jer 49:20; Jer 25:38 with Jer 49:19 and Jer 46:16." For, of all these passages, none belongs to the second prophecy against Egypt (Jer 46:14-28), and to that against the Philistines (Jer 47:1-7), except the last-quoted passage, Jer 46:16, in which the expression חרב  agrees with Jer 25:38, if in the latter passage we read חרב for חרון. But this expression is also repeated in the oracle against Babylon, Jer 50:16; so that no proof can be drawn, from a consideration of the language employed, to show that the prophecies against Egypt (Jer 46:14-28) and against the Philistines (Jer 47:1-7) belong to the same time, as has been supposed. And the assertion that the prophecy against Elam forms an appendix to those which precede, could have been made only by a mind in a state of perplexity. Its position, after that against the Arabian tribes, and before that against Babylon, exactly agrees with the place occupied by Elam in Jer 25:5.^[13]

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1703

When we examine the contents of these nine oracles, we find that the one against Babylon differs from all the preceding in this, that it announces not merely the ruin of Babylon, but also the salvation of Israel; but this peculiarity is the very point in which it agrees with the prophecies against Egypt, of which the second ends with a promise in Israel's favour (Jer 46:27-28). This correspondence shows us that we cannot separate the prophecy regarding Babylon from the others, or even place it in contrast with them. Egypt and Babylon were, at that time, the two great powers of this world which sought to oppress and destroy the kingdom of God. The fall of one or the other of these powers was thus for Israel a pledge that they would be preserved and saved. In the remaining oracles, the reference to the theocracy is quite placed in the background. Only in that against Ammon do we meet with the complaint that it had taken possession of the cities of Israel, as if Israel had no heir (Jer 49:1). In the others there is no mention made of offence against the theocracy, but only of pride, arrogance, and carnal reliance on their earthly power, for which they shall be humbled and punished. Further, it is to be observed that the oracles against Egypt, Moab, Ammon, and Elam conclude with the promise of restoration at the end of the days, i.e., in the Messianic future (cf. Jer 46:26; Jer 48:47; Jer 49:6 and Jer 49:39). All these things plainly show that these oracles against the people merely repeat, in greater detail, the sentence already pronounced, Jer 25, against all nations: God the Lord has appointed the king of Babylon to execute this sentence, and for this end will give him, in the immediate future, and till his appointed time shall end, supremacy over the nations; after that, Babylon also shall

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1704

succumb to the sentence of ruin passed on it; and for Israel, with the deliverance from Babylon, there will arise a state of prosperity in which all nations will afterwards participate. In giving details with regard to these announcements of judgment, Jeremiah throughout falls back on the expressions of the older prophet, just as he does in his prophecies regarding Israel and Judah; these expressions he reproduces in a manner suited to the circumstances of his time, and still further developes. Cf. the collection of these references in Kueper on Jeremiah, p. 79ff.; see further the proofs given in the following commentary on each particular case.

Chap. 46

Verses 1-2

Jer 46:1-2Superscriptions. - Jer 46:1 contains the title for the whole collection of prophecies regarding the nations (הגּוים, as contrasted with Israel, mean the heathen nations), Jer 46-51. As to the formula, "What came as the word of Jahveh to Jeremiah," etc., cf. the remarks on Jer 14:1. - In Jer 46:2, the special heading of this chapter begins with the word מצרים .למצרים is subordinated by ל to the general title, - properly, "with regard to Egypt:" cf. למואב, etc., Jer 48:1; Jer 49:1, Jer 49:7,Jer 49:23, Jer 49:28, also Jer 23:9. This chapter contains two prophecies regarding Egypt, Jer 46:2-12, and vv. 13-28. למצרים refers to both. After this there follows an account of the occasion for the first of these two prophecies, in the words, "Concerning the army of Pharaoh-Necho, the king of Egypt, which was at the river Euphrates, near Carchemish, which Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon smote in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah." נכו, as in 2Ch 35:20, or נכּה, as in 2Ki 23:29, in lxx Νεχαώ; Egyptian, according to Brugsch (Hist. d'Egypte, i. p. 252), Nekaaou; in Herodotus Νεκώς, - is said by Manetho to have been the sixth king of the twenty-sixth (Saïte) dynasty, the second Pharaoh of this name, the son of Psammetichus I, and grandson of Necho I. Brugsch says he reigned from 611 to 595 b.c. See on 2 Chr. 23:29. The two relative clauses are co-ordinate, i.e., אשׁר in each case depends on חיל. The first clause merely states where Pharaoh's army was, the second tells what befall it at the Euphrates. It is to this that the following prophecy refers. Pharaoh-

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1705

Necho, soon after ascending the throne, in the last year of Josiah's reign (610 b.c.), had landed in Palestine, at the bay of Acre, with the view of subjugating Hither Asia as far as the Euphrates, and had defeated the slain King Josiah, who marched out against him. He next deposed Jehoahaz, whom the people had raised to the throne as Josiah's successor, and carried him to Egypt, after having substituted Eliakim, the elder brother of Jehoahaz, and made him his vassal-king, under the name of Jehoiakim. When he had thus laid Judah under tribute, he advanced farther into Syria, towards the Euphrates, and had reached Carchemish on that river, as is stated in this verse: there his army was defeated by Nebuchadnezzar, in the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim (606 b.c.); see on 2Ki 23:29. Carchemish is Κιρκήσιον, Circesium, or Cercusium of the classical writers,^[14]
Arabic karqi=si=yat, a fortified city at the junction of the Chebar with the Euphrates, built on the peninsula formed by the two rivers (Ammian. Marc. xxiii. 5, Procop. bell. Pers. ii. 5, and Marasç. under Karkesija). All that now remains of it are ruins, called by the modern Arabs Abu Psera, and situated on the Mesopotamian side of the Euphrates, where that river is joined by the Chebar (Ausland, 1864, S. 1058). This fortress was either taken, or at least besieged, by Necho. The statement, "in the fourth year of Jehoiakim," can be referred exegetically only to the time of the defeat of the Egyptians at Carchemish, or the year of the battle, and is actually so understood by most interpreters. No one but Niebuhr (Gesch. Ass. u. Babl. S. 59, 86, 370ff.) alters the date of the battle, which he places in the third year of Jehoiakim, partly from consideration of Dan 1:1, partly from other chronological calculations; he would refer the date given in our verse to the time when the following song was composed or published. But Dan 1:1 does not necessarily require us to make any such assumption (see on that passage), and the other chronological computations are quite uncertain. Exegetically, it is as impossible to insert a period after "which Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon smote" (Nieb. p. 86, note 3), as to

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1706

connect the date "in the fourth year of Jehoiakim" with "which word came to Jeremiah" (Jer 46:10). The title in Jer 46:1 certainly does not refer specially to the prophecy about Egypt, but to על־הגּוים. But if we wished to make the whole of Jer 46:2 dependent on 'אשׁר היה דבר , which would, at all events, be a forced, unnatural construction, then, from the combination of the title in Jer 46:1 with the specification of time at the end of Jer 46:2, it would follow that all the prophecies regarding the nations had come to Jeremiah in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, - which would contradict what is said in the heading to the oracle against Elam (Jer 49:34), not to mention the oracle against Babylon.
Moreover, there is nothing to prevent us from assuming that the first prophecy against Egypt was revealed to Jeremiah, and uttered by him, in the same fourth year of Jehoiakim in which Necho was defeated by Nebuchadnezzar. In this way, the argument brought forward by Niebuhr in support of his forced interpretation, viz., that all specifications of time in the addresses of Jeremiah refer to the period of composition, loses all its force. In Jer 45:1 also, and in Jer 51:9, the time when the event occurred coincides with the time when the utterance regarding it was pronounced. Although we assume this to hold in the case before us, yet it by no means follows that what succeeds, in Jer 46:3-12, is not a prophecy, but a song or lyric celebrating so important a battle, "the picture of an event that had already occurred," as Niebuhr, Ewald, and Hitzig assume. This neither follows from the statement in the title, "which Nebuchadnezzar in the fourth year of Jehoiakim smote," nor from the contents of the succeeding address. The superscription does not naturally belong to what Jeremiah has said or uttered, but must have been prefixed, for the first time, only when the address was committed to writing and inserted in the collection, and this not till after the battle had been fought; but it is evident that the address is to be viewed as substantially a prophecy (see Jer 46:6 and Jer 46:10), although Jeremiah depicts, in the most lively and dramatic way, not merely the preparation of the mighty host, Jer 46:3, and its formidable advance, Jer 46:7-9, but also its flight and annihilation, in Jer 46:5 and in Jer 46:10-12.

Verses 3-4

Jer 46:3-4"Prepare shield and target, and advance to the battle. Jer 46:4. Yoke the horses [to the chariots]; mount the'

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1707

steeds, and stand with helmets on; polish the spears, put on the armour. Jer 46:5. Why do I see? they are terrified and turned back, and their heroes are beaten, and flee in flight, and do not turn: terror is round about, saith Jahveh. Jer 46:6. Let not the swift one flee, nor let the hero escape; towards the north, by the side of the river Euphrates, they stumble and fall. Jer 46:7. Who is this that cometh up like the Nile? his waters wave like the rivers. Jer 46:8. Egypt cometh up like the Nile, [his] waters are moved like the rivers; and he saith, I will go up, I will cover the earth; I will destroy the city, and those who dwell in it. Jer 46:9. Go up, ye horses; and drive furiously, ye chariots; and let the heroes go forth; Cushites and Phutites, bearing the shield; and Lydians, handling [and] bending the bow. Jer 46:10. But that day [belongs] to the Lord Jahveh of hosts, a day of vengeance for avenging Himself on His enemies: and the sword shall devour and be satisfied, and shall drink its fill of their blood; for the Lord Jahveh of hosts holdeth a slaying of sacrifices in the land of the north at the river Euphrates. Jer 46:11. Go up to Gilead, and take balsam, O virgin, daughter of Egypt: in vain hast thou multiplied medicines; cure there is none for thee. Jer 46:12. The nations have heard of thine ignominy, and thy cry hath filled the earth: for heroes stumble against heroes, both of them fall together."
This address falls into two strophes, Jer 46:3-6 and Jer 46:7-12. In both are depicted in a lively manner, first the advance of the Egyptian host to the battle, then their flight and destruction. The whole has been arranged so as to form a climax: in the first strophe, the admirable equipment of the armies, and their sudden flight and defeat, are set forth in brief sentences; in the second, there is fully described not merely the powerful advance of the host that covers the earth, but also the judgment of inevitable destruction passed on them by God: the reason for the whole is also assigned. Jer 46:3. In order to represent the matter in a lively way, the description begins with the call addressed to the army, to make ready for the battle. "Make ready shield and target," the two main pieces of defensive armour. מגן was the small [round] shield; צנּה, scutum, the large shield, covering the whole body. "Advance to the fight," i.e., go forward

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1708

into the battle. Then the address turns to the several portions of the army: first to those who fight from chariots, who are to yoke the horses; then to the horsemen, to mount the steeds. פּרשׁים are not horsemen, but riding-horses, as in 1Ki 5:6; 1Ki 10:26; Eze 27:14. עלה is construed with the accus., as in Gen 49:4. The rendering given by Dahler and Umbreit, "Mount, ye horsemen," and that of Hitzig, "Advance, ye horsemen," are against the parallelism; and the remark of the last-named writer, that "Mount the steeds" would be רכבוּ, does not accord with 1Sa 30:17. Next, the address is directed to the foot-soldiers, who formed the main portion of the army. These are to take up their position with helmets on, to polish the spears, i.e., to sharpen them, and to put on the pieces of armour, in order to be arrayed for battle. מרק, to rub, polish, remove rust from the spear, and thereby sharpen it. סריון, here and in Jer 51:3 for שׁריון, a coat of mail, pieces of armour.

Verses 5-7

Thus well arrayed, the host advances to the fight; but suddenly the seer perceives the magnificent army terror-stricken, retreating, and breaking out into a disorderly flight. The question, "Why (wherefore) do I see?" points to the unexpected and incomprehensible turn in the progress of events. המּה חתּים is not an accus. dependent on ראיתי, but an independent clause: "What do I see? They are terror-stricken" (חתּים, terrified, broken-spirited through terror). יכּתּוּ, Hoph. from כּתת, to be broken, here and in Job 4:20 applied to persons. מנוס is added to the verb instead of the inf. abs., to give emphasis to the idea contained in the word; cf. Ewald, §281, a. מגור מסּביב .a , "horror, terror around" (cf. Jer 6:25), is taken by Ewald as the reply of Jahveh to the question, "Wherefore is this? On every side there is danger;" and this is appropriately followed by the imperatives in Jer 46:6, "Let no one, then, attempt to flee; not one shall escape to Egypt, but they must fall at the Euphrates." The perfects כּשׁלוּ ונפלוּ are prophetic; the stumbling and falling are as certain as if they had already happened. The second strophe commences at Jer 46:7. The description begins anew, and that with a question of astonishment at the mighty host advancing like the Nile when it bursts its banks and inundates the whole country. יאר is the name of the Nile, taken from

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1709

the Egyptian into the Hebrew language; cf. Gen. 41ff., Exo 1:22, etc. התגּעשׁ, dash about (Jer 5:22), wave backwards and forwards: the Hithpa. is here interchanged with the Hithpo. without any difference of meaning.

Verses 8-9

Jer 46:8-9 brings the answer to the question of astonishment: "Egypt approaches, its hosts cover the land like the waves of the Nile, to destroy cities and men." On the form  אבידה (with א contracted from אא), cf. Ewald, §192, d; Gesenius, §68, Rem. 1. עיר is used in an indefinite general sense, "cities," as in Jer 8:16. - In Jer 46:9, the imperat. stands as in Jer 46:3.: "Let the formidable army approach, - cavalry, chariots, and infantry, with all their splendidly equipped auxiliaries, - nevertheless it shall perish." עלוּ הסּוּסים does not here mean "Mount the steeds," which is against the parallelism, but "Get up (i.e., prance), ye horses;" this meaning is guaranteed by the Hiphil מעלה, as used in Nah 3:3. התהללוּ הרכב is an imitation of Nah 2:5. As auxiliaries, and very brave ones too (גבּורים), are mentioned "Cush," i.e., the Ethiopians; "Phut," the Libyans; and "Ludim," i.e., Hamitic, African Lydians, as in Eze 30:5. On the double construct in תּפשׂי דר, "holding, bending bows," cf. Ew. §280, c.

Verse 10

This formidable army shall perish; for the day of the battle is the day of the Lord of hosts, on which He will take vengeance upon His enemies. Among these enemies are the Egyptians, who have grievously sinned against Israel, the people of the Lord, not merely of late, by making war upon and killing King Josiah, by carrying away Jehoahaz, and making Jehoiakim his vassal, but also from the earliest times. For this, Egypt is now to be brought low. The sword shall devour and be refreshed by drinking the blood of the Egyptians. For the Lord is preparing for a slaying of sacrifices (זבח) in the north, at the Euphrates. Isa 34:6 forms the basis of these words.

Verses 11-12

The blow which shall there come on the Egyptians is one from which they shall never recover, and the wound shall be one not to be healed by any balm. As to the balm of Gilead, see on Jer 8:22; on רפאות and תּעלה, see Jer 30:13. "Virgin daughter of Egypt" is equivalent to virgin-like people of Egypt, i.e., not hitherto forced, but now ravished, violated, so that all nations shall hear of the dishonour done them, and their cry shall fill the whole earth, for (as at the conclusion,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1710

the threat is added by way of confirmation) all the heroes of Egypt stumble and fall. גּבּור בּגבּור, "hero against hero," i.e., one against another, or over the others, as usually happens in a flight where confusion reigns; cf. Jer. 26:37.

Verse 13

The second prophecy regarding Egypt, with a message for Israel attached to it, was uttered after the preceding. This is evident even from the superscription, Jer 46:13 : "The word which Jahveh spake to Jeremiah the prophet of the coming of Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon to smite the land of Egypt." The formula, "The word which," etc., agrees with that in Jer 50:1; and דּבר, in contrast with היה, the word usually met with in headings, perhaps means that this prophecy, like that concerning Babylon, was not uttered in public by Jeremiah, but only written down. לבוא is used in reference to the coming of Nebuchadrezzar to smite the land. Graf puts down this heading as an addition, not made till a late edition of the prophecies was brought out, and even then added through a mistake on the part of the compiler. In support of this, he urges that the announcement in Jer 46:14-26 does not form an independent prophecy, but merely constitutes the second portion of the description given in Jer 46:3-12 of the defeat of the Egyptians. But the ground assigned for this view, viz., that if this prophecy formed a separate and distinct piece, written at another time, then Jeremiah would have predicted the conquest of the other countries, Philistia, Moab, Ammon, etc., in consequence of the battle of Carchemish; and as regards Egypt, would have contented himself with a triumphal song over its fall - which is in itself unlikely: this argument is utterly null. It has no meaning whatever; for Jer 46:3-12 contain, not a triumphal song over a defeat that had already taken place, but a prophecy regarding the defeat about to take place. To this the prophet added a second prophecy, in which he once more announces beforehand to Egypt that it shall be conquered. In this way, more is foretold regarding Egypt than the neighbouring countries, because Egypt was of much greater consequence, in relation to the theocracy, than Philistia, Moab, etc. According to the superscription, this second prophecy refers to the conquest of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar. According to Jer 37:5, this did not

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1711

take place so long as Zedekiah was king; and according to Jer 43:8., it was foretold by Jeremiah, after the destruction of Jerusalem, when the Jews were fleeing to Egypt after the murder of Gedaliah. From this, one might conclude, with Nägelsbach, that the piece now before us is contemporaneous with Jer 43:8. But this inference is not a valid one. The threat uttered in Jer 43:8. of a conquest to befall Egypt had a special occasion of its own, and we cannot well regard it in any other light than as a repetition of the prophecy now before us, for the Jews; for its contents seem to show that it was composed not long after that in Jer 46:3-12, or soon after the defeat of the Egyptians at Carchemish. This address also falls into two strophes, Jer 46:14-19 and Jer 46:20-26, while Jer 46:27, Jer 46:28 form an additional message for Israel. The line of thought is this: Egypt may arm herself as she chooses, but her power shall fall, and her auxiliaries shall flee (Jer 46:14-16). Pharaoh's fall is certain; the enemy shall come in force, and turn all Egypt into a desert (Jer 46:17-19). The destroyer comes from the north, the mercenaries flee, and the enemy hews down countless hosts of men like trees in a forest (Jer 46:20-23). Egypt will be given into the hand of the people out of the north; for Jahveh will punish gods, princes, and people, and deliver up Egypt to the king of Babylon. But afterwards, Egypt will again be inhabited as it was before (Jer 46:24-26). On the other hand, Israel need fear nothing, for their God will lead them back out of their captivity (Jer 46:27, Jer 46:28).

Verse 14

Jer 46:14"Tell ye it in Egypt, and make it to be heard in Migdol, and make it be heard in Noph and Tahpanhes: say, Stand firm, and prepare thee; for the sword hath devoured around thee. Jer 46:15. Why hath thy strong one been swept away? he stood not, for Jahveh pushed him down. Jer 46:16. He made many stumble, yea, one fell on another; and they said, Arise, and let us return to our own people, and to the land of our birth, from before the oppressing sword. Jer 46:17. They cried there, Pharaoh the king of Egypt is undone; he hath let the appointed time pass. Jer 46:18. As I live, saith the King, whose name is Jahveh of hosts, Surely as Tabor among the mountains, and as Carmel by the sea, shall he come. Jer 46:19. Prepare thee things for exile, O daughter dwelling in'

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1712

Egypt: for Noph will become a desolation, and be destroyed by fire, without an inhabitant."
Like the last prophecy, this one also begins with the summons to arms (Jer 46:14), in order to prepare the way for the description given immediately afterwards of the defeat (Jer 46:15.). The summons to make the proclamation is addressed to some persons not named, who are to announce through the country, particularly in the frontier towns and in the northern capital of Egypt, that the foe, in his devastating career, has advanced to the borders of the land. This is evident from the clause which states the reason: "The sword hath devoured what lay round thee." Regarding Migdol, i.e., Magdolos, and Tahpanhes, i.e., Daphne, the two frontier towns in the north, and Noph, i.e., Memphis, the northern capital of the kingdom, see on Jer 2:16 and 54:1. התיצּב, to take up one's position for the fight; cf. Jer 46:4. סביביך, "thy surroundings," are the frontier countries, but especially those on the north, - Judah, Philistia, Edom, - since the enemy comes from the north. However, we cannot with certainty infer from this, that by that time the kingdom of Judah had already fallen, and Jerusalem been laid waste. Immediately after Necho had been vanquished at the Euphrates, Nebuchadnezzar marched after the fugitive foe, pursuing him as far as the borders of Egypt; hence we read, in 2Ki 24:7, "The king of Egypt went no more out of his land; for the king of Babylon had taken all that had belonged to the king of Egypt, from the river of Egypt to the river Euphrates." Even at that time, in the fourth and fifth years of Jehoiakim, it could be said, "His sword hath devoured the countries contiguous to Egypt." And Nebuchadnezzar was prevented on that occasion from advancing farther, and penetrating into Egypt itself, only by hearing of his father's death at Babylon, in consequence of which he was compelled to return to Babylon as speedily as possible, for the purpose of assuming the reins of government, and to let his army with the prisoners follow him at their leisure (Berosus in Josephus, contra Ap. i. 19).

Verse 15

The prophet in spirit looks on the power of Egypt as already broken. This is shown by the question of astonishment, מדּוּע נסחף אבּיריך, which has been variously rendered. אבּירים .deredner ylsuoirav neeb sa, "strong ones," is

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1713

used in Jer 8:16; Jer 47:3, and Jer 50:11, of stallions, but elsewhere as an epithet of bulls, especially the strong bulls of Bashan; see on Jer 8:16. In the present passage the reference may be to the mighty men of war, who do not maintain their position (Chald. and most of the old interpreters); the verb in the singular forms no sufficient objection to this view, the irregularity being due to the fact that the verb precedes its subject see Ewald, §316, t; Gesenius, §147]. It is more difficult to combine with this the singulars of the verbs עמד and הדפו which follow; these, and especially the suffix in the singular, appear to indicate that אבּידיך really refers to a noun in the singular. But the form of this noun seems against such a view; for the words adduced in support of the position that singular nouns sometimes assume plural suffixes, are insufficient for the purpose: thus, תּהלּתיך, Psa 9:15, and שׂנאתיך, Eze 35:11, are plainly nouns in the singular. And in support of the averment that, in pausal forms with Segol, the י is a mere mater lectionis, only כּפּיך, Pro 6:1, can be adduced: the other instances brought forward by Hitzig fail to establish his position. For איביך, Deu 28:48, may be plural; בּיני, Gen 16:5, is far from being a case in point, for the preposition often takes plural suffixes; and even in the case of חסידיך, Psa 16:10, the י is marked in the Qeri as superfluous; most codices, too, rather give the form חסידך. But even in the verse now before us, many codices, according to Kennicott and de Rossi, read אבּירך, so that the word should perhaps be taken as a singular. The singulars, however, which occur in the following clauses do not form conclusive proofs of this, since they may be taken in a distributive sense; and more generally the address often suddenly changes from the plural to the singular. In connection with the possibility of taking אבּיריך as a singular, the paraphrase of the lxx deserves mention and consideration, ὁ μόσχος ὁ ἔκλετός σου, to which a gloss adds ὁ But we cannot agree with Kennicott, J. D. Michaelis, Ewald, Hitzig, Graf, and Nägelsbach, in holding this as certainly the correct rendering; nor can we give to אבּיר the sense of "bull," for this meaning is not made out for the singular simply because the plural is used of strong bulls: this holds especially in Jeremiah, who constantly applies the plural

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1714

to strong steeds. Still less ground is there for appealing to the fact that Jahveh is repeatedly called אבּיר ישׂראל or אבּיר יעקוב, Gen 49:24, Isa 1:24; Isa 39:1-8 :26 etc.; for this epithet of Jahveh (who shows Himself in or towards Israel as the Mighty One) cannot be applied to the helpless images of Apis. In Psa 68:31, אבּירים means "strong ones" - bulls as emblems of kings. If the word be used here with such a reference, it may be singular or plural. In the former case it would mean the king; in the latter, the king with his princes and magnates. Against the application of the word to the images of Apis, there is the fact that Apis, a symbol of Osiris, was neither the only nor the chief god of Egypt, but was worshipped nowhere except in Memphis (Herodotus, ii. 153); hence it was not suited to be the representative of the gods or the power of Egypt, as the context of the present passage requires.

Verse 16

As the mighty one of Egypt does not stand, but is thrust down by God, so Jahveh makes many stumble and fall over one another, so that the strangers return to their own home in order to escape the violence of the sword. The subject of ויּאמרוּ is indefinite; the speakers, however, are not merely the hired soldiers or mercenaries (Jer 46:11), or the allied nations (Eze 30:5), but strangers generally, who had been living in Egypt partly for the sake of commerce, partly for other reasons (Hitzig, Graf). As to חרב היּונה, see on Jer 25:38.

Verses 17-19

In Jer 46:17, "they cry there" is not to be referred to those who fled to their native land; the subject is undefined, and "there" refers to the place where one falls over the other, viz., Egypt. "There they cry, 'Pharaoh the king of Egypt is שׁאון, desolation, destruction, ruin:' " for this meaning, cf. Jer 25:31; Psa 40:3; the signification "noise, bustle," is unsuitable here.^[15]

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1715

The meaning of העביר המּועד also is disputed; it is quite inadmissible, however, to join the words with שׁאון, as Ewald does, for the purpose of making out a name. No suitable meaning can be extracted from them. Neither שׁאון nor המּועד can be the subject of העביר; the translation given by Schnurrer, "devastation that goes beyond all bounds," is still more arbitrary than that of Ewald given in the note. Since the Hiphil העביר is never used except with a transitive meaning, the subject can be none else than Pharaoh; and the words העביר המּועד must be intended to give the reason for this becoming a desolation: they are thus to be rendered, "he has allowed המּועד to pass by," not "the precise place," as Rosenmüller explains it ("he did not stop in his flight at the place where the army could be gathered again, on the return"), but "the precise time." The reference, however, is not to the suitable time for action, for self-defence and for driving off the enemy (Grotius, C. B. Michaelis, Maurer, Umbreit), because the word does not mean suitable, convenient time, but appointed time. As Hitzig rightly perceived, the time meant is that within which the desolation might still be averted, and after which the judgment of God fell on him (Isa 10:25; Isa 30:18), - the time of grace which God had vouchsafed to him, so that Nebuchadnezzar did not at once, after the victory at Carchemish, invade and conquer Egypt. Pharaoh let this time pass by; because, instead of seeing in that defeat a judgment from God, he provoked the anger of Nebuchadnezzar by his repeated attacks on the Chaldean power, and brought on the invasion of Egypt by the king of Babylon (see above, p. 354). -

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1716

In Jer 46:18. there is laid down a more positive foundation for the threat uttered in Jer 46:17. With an oath, the Lord announces the coming of the destroyer into Egypt. Like Tabor, which overtops all the mountains round about, and like Carmel, which looks out over the sea as if it were a watch-tower, so will he come, viz., he from whom proceeds the devastation of Egypt, the king of Babylon. the power of Nebuchadnezzar, in respect of its overshadowing all other kings, forms the point of comparison. Tabor has the form of a truncated cone. Its height is given at 1805 feet above the level of the sea, or 1350 from the surface of the plain below; it far surpasses in height all the hills in the vicinity, ad affords a wide prospect on every side; cf. Robinson's Phys. Geogr. of Palestine, p. 26f. Carmel stretches out in the form of a long ridge more than three miles wide, till it terminates on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea, as a bold, lofty promontory, which rises in an imposing manner at least 500 feet above the sea; cf. Robinson, p. 26f. Then the inhabitants of Egypt will be driven into exile. כּלי גולה .e, "vessels of wandering;" outfit for an exile, as in Eze 12:3. "Daughter of Egypt" is not a personification of the country, whose inhabitants are the people, but of the population, which is viewed as the daughter of the country; it stands in apposition to יושׁבת, like בּתוּלת בּת מצרי, Jer 46:11. For Noph, i.e., Memphis, the capital, is laid waste and burned, so as to lose its inhabitants. With Jer 46:20 begins the second strophe, in which the fate impending on Egypt is still more plainly predicted.

Verses 20-26

Jer 46:20-26"Egypt is a very beautiful young heifer; a gadfly from the north comes - comes. Jer 46:21. Her mercenaries, too, in her midst, are like fatted calves; for they also turn their backs, they flee together: they do not stand, for the day of her destruction is some on her, the time of her visitation. Jer 46:22. Its sound is like [that of] the serpent [as it] goes; for they go with an army, and come against her with axes, like hewers of trees. Jer 46:23. They cut down her forest, saith Jahveh, for it is not to be searched; for they are more numerous than locusts, and they cannot be numbered. Jer 46:24. The daughter of Egypt is disgraced; she is given into the hand of the people of the north. Jer 46:25. Jahveh of hosts, the God of Israel, saith, Behold, I will visit Amon of No, and Pharaoh, and Egypt, her gods, and her

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1717

kings; Pharaoh, and all those who trust in him. Jer 46:26. And I will give them into the hand of those who seek their life, even into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and into the hand of his servants; but afterwards it shall be inhabited, as in the days of old, saith Jahveh."

Verse 20

In Jer 46:20 the address begins afresh, in order to carry out further, under new images, the description of the desolation already threatened. Egypt is a very beautiful עגלה; this feminine is chosen with a regard to "the daughter of Egypt." יפה־פיּה is an adjective formed from the Peal of יפה, "very beautiful," not "coquetting" (Hitzig, who follows the κεκαλλωπισμένη of the lxx). A very beautiful heifer is the people when carefully and abundantly fed in their beautiful and fertile land (Hitzig). Upon this heifer there comes from the north קרץ. This ἁπ. λεγ. is variously rendered. קרץ means, in the Hebrew, to pinch, nip (Job 33:6), to compress together, as in winking (Psa 35:19), to bring the lips closely together (Pro 16:30), and to nip off; cf. Arab. qaras[a to pinch, nip, cut off. Hence A. Schultens (Orig. Heb. ii. 34ff.), after Cocceius, and with a reference to Virgil, Georg. iii. 147, has rendered קרץ by morsus vellicans oestri. Hitzig (with whom Roediger, in his additions to Gesenius' Thesaurus, agrees) takes Arab. qârṣ , insectum cimici simile as his warrant for rendering it by oestrus, "the gadfly," which gives a more suitable meaning. Ewald, on the contrary, compares קרץ with Arab. qrs], and translates it "whale," a huge sea-monster; but this is quite arbitrary, for קרץ does not correspond to the Arabic qrs], and the whale or shark does not afford any figure that would be suitable for the context: e.g., Jer 46:21, "her mercenaries also flee," shows that the subject treated of is not the devouring or destruction, but the expulsion of the Egyptians out of their land; this is put as an addition to what is said about exile in Jer 46:19. Still less suitable is the general rendering excidium, destruction (Rabbins, Gesenius, Umbreit); and there is no lexical foundation for the Vulgate translation stimulator, nor for "taskmaster," the rendering of J. D. Michaelis and Rosenmüller. The old translators have

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1718

only made guesses from the context. The figure of the gadfly corresponds to the bee in the land of Assyria, Isa 7:18. The repetition of בּא gives emphasis, and points either to the certainty of the coming, or its continuance.

Verse 21

The mercenaries, also, of the daughter of Egypt, well fed, like fatted calves, betake themselves to flight. שׂכרים are "mercenaries," as distinguished from the allies mentioned in Jer 46:9. It was Carians and Ionians through whom Psammetichus attained the supremacy over all Egypt: these had settled down in στρατόπεδα of their own, between Bubastis and Pelusium, on both banks of the eastern arm of the Nile (Herodotus, ii. 152, 154), and were very well cared for, since the king relied on them (Herod. ii. 152, 163). Hence the comparison with fatted calves, which, moreover, are co-ordinated with the subject, as is shown by the resumption of the subject in גּם המּה. כּי stands in the middle of the sentence, with an asseverative meaning: "Yea, these also turn their back, they flee together, do not stand; for the day of their destruction is come." "The day of their destruction" is used as in Jer 18:17. On "the time of their visitation" (which stands in apposition to the preceding expression (cf. Jer 11:23; Jer 23:12 : it is not an accusative of time (Graf), for this always expresses the idea of continuance during a space of time.

Verses 22-23

In Jer 46:22, Jer 46:23, the annihilation of the power of Egypt is portrayed under another figure. A difficult expression is קולהּ כּנּחשׁ ילך, "her (viz., that of the daughter of Egypt) voice is like (the voice of) the serpent (which) goes." ילך must be taken as part of a relative sentence, since this verb is nowhere used of a voice or sound; hence it cannot be so joined here. Ewald, following the συρίζοντος of the lxx, would read שׁרק, "hissing," instead of ילך, and translates, "it makes a noise like the hissing serpent." He more fully defines the meaning thus: "Even though Egypt were hidden like a serpent in a thicket, yet it would be heard in its flight, like a nasty serpent hissing fiercely, while it hurries away from the axe of the wood-cutter." But, apart from the arbitrary change of ילך into שׁרק (the former word is used in Gen 3:14 of the going, i.e., crawling, of a serpent), Ewald puts into the words an idea altogether foreign to them. The nasty, fierce hissing of the serpent that is forced to flee, is quite unsuitable; for there is no further

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1719

mention made of the flight of the Egyptians, but Egypt is hewn down like a forest by woodcutters. Moreover, as Graf has already well remarked, Egypt is not compared to a serpent, but only its voice to the voice or hiss of a serpent. For קול signifies, not merely the voice, but any sound, even the rustling and rattling of leaves (cf. Gen 3:8; Lev 26:36; 2Sa 5:24); hence it may denote the noise caused by a serpent crawling on its belly in the thicket. The comparison, as Graf has correctly observed, is like that in Isa 29:4. There it is the daughter of Zion, but here it is the daughter of Egypt that lies on the ground, deeply humbled; weeping softly and moaning, making a sound like that of a serpent in a moss among fallen leaves, fleeing before the woodcutters.^[16]
Thus she lies on the ground, for the enemy comes in force, with axes like woodcutters, to hew down the forest of men in Egypt. The mention of the axes is occasioned by the comparison of the foe to woodcutters; we are not to think of battle-axes as weapons of the Massagetae, Scythians, Persians, and other nations (Herodotus, i. 215, iv. 70, vii. 64; Xenophon, Cyroped. i. 2, 9). Axes here form the type of murderous weapons generally. On the comparison of a multitude of people to a forest, cf. Jer 21:14; Isa 10:18., Isa 10:33. The clause כּי לא יחקר is referred by L. de Dieu, J. D. Michaelis, Hitzig, Nägelsbach, etc., to the wood, "for it cannot be explored

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1720

or penetrated;" thus a road must be made in order to get through it. However, the question is not about the enemy going or marching through Egypt, but about the destruction of Egypt and her powers. Rosenmüller and Graf, with Raschi, are more correct in referring the clause to the hostile army, "for it cannot be investigated," i.e., it is impossible to learn the number of them. It is no great objection to this interpretation that the verb occurs in the singular: this must be retained as it is, since it is not the individual enemies that cannot be searched out, but it is the number of the whole army that cannot be reckoned. On the employment of חקר in the Niphal in connection with the impossibility of counting a multitude, cf. 1Ki 7:47, and the expression לא in Job 5:9; Job 9:10; 36:36. The clauses which follow, and conclude Jer 46:23, explain the thought further: "more numerous than grasshoppers," i.e., innumerable.

Verses 24-26

In Jer 46:24. the result of the overthrow of Egypt, which has hitherto been set forth in figurative language, is stated in words which describe the exact realities: Egypt will be given up to ignominy, delivered into the power of a people from the north, i.e., the Chaldeans. The Lord of hosts, the Almighty God of Israel, punishes it for its sins. He visits, i.e., punishes, Amon of No, the chief idol of Egypt; Pharaoh, and the land, with all its gods and its kings, and with Pharaoh, all those who place their trust in his power. Words are accumulated for the purpose of showing that the judgment will be one which shall befall the whole land, together with its gods, its rulers, and its inhabitants. First of all is mentioned Amon of No, as in Eze 30:14. נא is an abbreviation of נא אמון , i.e., dwelling of Amon, the sacred name of the royal city in Upper Egypt, famous in antiquity, which the Greeks called Διὸς πόλις, or Θήβη, or Θῆβαι it is supposed, after the vulgar Egyptian name Tapet or Tape (Throne or Seat); see on Nah 3:8. Amon - in Greek  ̓Αμμοῦν  (Herodotus, ii. 42),  ̓Αμοῦν (Plutarch, de Is. Ch. 9),  ̓Αμῶν (Jamblichus, de myst. 5, 8) - was a sun-god (Amon-Râ), probably a symbol of the sun as it appears in the spring, in the sign of the Ram; hence he was represented with rams' horns. By the Greeks he was compared to Jupiter, or Zeus, and named Jupiter Ammon. The chief seat of his

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1721

worship was Thebes, where he had a temple, with a numerous learned priesthood and a famous oracle (cf. Strabo, xvii. 1. 43; Justin. xi. 11), which Cambyses destroyed (Diodorus, Siculus, Fragm. Lib. x.). Under the expression "kings of Egypt" we are not to include governors or vassal-kings, but all the kings who ever ruled Egypt; for in the judgment now falling on Egypt, all the kings it ever had, together with all its gods, are punished. In the last part of the verse the name of Pharaoh is once more given, for the purpose of attaching to it the words "and all who trust in him;" these are intended for the Jews who expected help from Egypt. The punishment consists in their being all given into the hand of their enemies, namely (ו explic.) into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar and his servants. This defeat, however, is not to be the end of the Egyptian kingdom. The threat of judgment concludes, in Jer 46:26, with a promise for the future. "Afterwards, it shall be inhabited, as in the days of yore." שׁכן is used in a neuter sense, as in Jer 17:6; Jer 33:16, etc. Since this verb also signifies to settle down, be encamped (Num 24:2), and to lie quiet, to rest, or keep oneself quiet, inactive (Jdg 5:17; Pro 7:11), Hitzig and Graf, with Kimchi, give the explanation: "because the power of Egypt shall be broken, it will keep quiet, and remain at home in its own country, instead of marching forth and fighting other nations, as it has lately begun again to do (Jer 46:7) after centuries of peace." But although, in support of this view, we are pointed to Eze 29:13, where the restoration of Egypt is predicted, with the further remark, "it will be an abject kingdom," yet this idea is not contained in the words of our verse. To render שׁכן by "to keep quiet, be inactive," does not suit the words "as in the days of old." In former days, Egypt was neither inactive nor remained at home in peace in its own land. From the remotest antiquity, the Pharaohs made wars, and sought to enlarge their dominions by conquest. Add to this, that we must view the concluding portion of this prophecy in a manner analogous to the closing thought of the prophecies regarding Moab (Jer 48:47), Ammon (Jer 49:6), and Elam (Jer 49:39), where the turning of the captivity in the last times is given in prospect to these nations, and "afterwards," in Jer 49:6, alternates with "in the latter days" found in Jer 48:47 and Jer 49:39.

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1722

From this it follows that, in the verse now before us also, it is not the future in general, but the last time, i.e., the Messianic future, that is pointed out; hence שׁכן does not express the peaceful condition of the land, but its being inhabited, in contrast with its depopulation in the immediate future, in consequence of its inhabitants being killed or carried away. On the fulfilment of this threatening, see p. 351ff.

Verses 27-28

Jer 46:27-28A promise for Israel. - Jer 46:27. "But fear not thou, O my servant Jacob, nor be dismayed: for, behold, I will save thee from afar, and thy seed from the land of their captivity; and Jacob shall return, and be at rest and secure, and no one shall make him afraid. Jer 46:28. Fear thou not, my servant Jacob, saith Jahveh, for I am with thee; for I will make complete destruction of all the nations whither I have driven thee, but of thee will I not make complete destruction: yet I will correct thee in a proper manner, and I will not leave thee wholly unpunished." These verses certainly form no integral portion of the prophecy, but an epilogue; yet they are closely connected with the preceding, and are occasioned by the declaration in Jer 46:26, that the Lord, when He visits Pharaoh, shall also visit all those who trust in Him. This word, which is directed to Judah, might be understood to declare that it is Judah chiefly which will share the fate of Egypt. In order to prevent such a misconception, Jeremiah adds a word for Israel, which shows how the true Israel has another destiny to hope for. Their deliverer is Jahveh, their God, who certainly punishes them for their sins, gives them up to the power of the heathen, but will also gather them gain after their dispersion, and then grant them uninterrupted prosperity. This promise of salvation at the close of the announcement of judgment on Egypt is similar to the promise of salvation for Israel inserted in the threat of judgment against Babylon, Jer 50:4-7 and Jer 50:19, Jer 50:20, Jer 51:5-6, Jer 51:10, Jer 51:35-36, Jer 51:45-46, Jer 51:50; and this similarity furnishes a proof in behalf of the genuineness of the verse, which is denied by modern critics. For, although what Nägelsbach remarks is quite correct, viz., that the fall of the kingdom of Babylon, through its conquest by Cyrus, directly brought about the deliverance of Israel, while the same cannot be said regarding the conquest of Egypt, yet even Egypt had a much greater

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1723

importance, in relation to Judah, than the smaller neighbouring nations, against which the oracles in Jer 47-49 are directed; hence there is no ground for the inference that, because there is nothing said in these three chapters of such a connection between Egypt and Israel, it did not really exist. But when Nägelsbach further asks, "How does this agree with the fact that Jeremiah, on other occasions, while in Egypt, utters only the strongest threats against the Israelites - Jer 42-44?" - there is the ready answer, that the expressions in Jer 42-44 do not apply to the whole covenant people, but only to the rabble of Judah that was ripe for the sentence of destruction, that had fled to Egypt against the will of God. What Hitzig and Graf have further urged in another place against the genuineness of the verses now before us, is scarcely worth mention. The assertion that the verses do not accord with the time of the foregoing prophecy, and rather presuppose the exile, can have weight only with those who à priori deny that the prophet could make any prediction. But if Jeremiah, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, distinctly announces not merely the carrying away of Judah to Babylon, but also fixes the duration of the exile at seventy years, then he might well speak at the same time, or later, of the restoration of Israel from their captivity.
But there are two other considerations which support the genuineness of these verses: (1) The fact that Hitzig and Graf are obliged to confess it remains a problem how they came to form a part of the oracle against Egypt. The attempt made by the former writer to solve this problem partly rests on the assumption, already refuted by Graf, that the verses were written by the second Isaiah (on this point, see our remarks at p. 263, note), and partly on a combination of results obtained by criticism, in which even their author has little confidence. But (2) we must also bear in mind the nature of the verses in question. They form a repetition of what we find in Jer 30:10-11, and a repetition, too, quite in the style of Jeremiah, who makes variations in expression. Thus here, in Jer 46:27, נאם יהוה is omitted after יעקוב, perhaps simply because Jer 46:26 concludes with נאם יהוה; again, in Jer 46:20, àתּה אל־תּירא  is repeated with נאם יהוה, which is wanting in Jer 30:11. On the

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1724

other hand, להושׁיעך in Jer 30:11, and אך in Jer 30:11, have been dropped; הפיצותיך שׁם (Jer 30:11) has been exchanged for הדּחתּיך שׁמּה. Hence Hitzig has taken the text here to be the better and the original one; and on this he founds the supposition that the verses were first placed here in the text, and were only afterwards, and from this passage, inserted in Jer 30:10-11, where, however, they stand in the best connection, and even for that reason could not be a gloss inserted there. Such are some of the contradictions in which critical scepticism involves itself. We have already given an explanation of these verses under Jer 30.

Chap. 47

Verse 1

The word of the Lord against the Philistines came to Jeremiah "before Pharaoh smote Gaza." If we understand this time-definition in such a way that "the prophecy would refer to the conquest of Gaza by Pharaoh," as Graf thinks, and as Hitzig also is inclined to suppose, then this portion of the title does not accord with the contents of the following prophecy; for, according to Jer 47:2, the devastator of Philistia approaches from the north, and the desolation comes not merely on Gaza, but on all Philistia, and even Tyre and Sidon (Jer 47:4, Jer 47:5). Hence Graf thinks that, if any one is inclined to consider the title as utterly incorrect, only two hypotheses are possible: either the author of the title overlooked the statement in Jer 47:2, that the hostile army was to come from the north; in which case this conquest might have taken place at any time during the wearisome struggles, fraught with such changes of fortune, between the Chaldeans and the Egyptians for the possession of the border fortresses, during the reign of Jehoiakim (which is Ewald's opinion): or he may possibly have noticed the statement, but found no difficulty in it; in which case, in spite of all opposing considerations (see M. von Niebuhr, Gesch. Assyr. und Bab. p. 369), it must be assumed that the conquest was effected by the defeated army as it was returning from the Euphrates, when Necho, on his march home, reduced Gaza (Hitzig), and by taking this fortress from the enemy, barred the way to Egypt. Of these two alternatives, we can accept neither as probable. The neglect, on the part of the author of

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1725

the title, to observe the statement that the enemy is to come from the north, would show too great carelessness for us to trust him. But if he did notice the remark, then it merely follows that Pharaoh must have reduced Gaza on his return, after being defeated at Carchemish. Nor is it legitimate to conclude, as Ewald does, from the statement in 2Ki 24:7 ("The king of Egypt went no more out of his land; for the king of Babylon had taken all that had belonged to the king of Egypt, from the river of Egypt unto the river Euphrates"), that the wars between the Chaldeans and the Egyptians for the possession of the border fortresses, such as Gaza, were tedious, and attended with frequent changes of fortune. In the connection in which it stands, this statement merely shows that, after Nebuchadnezzar had made Jehoiakim his vassal, the latter could not receive any help from Egypt in his rebellion, after he had ruled three years, because Pharaoh did not venture to march out of his own territory any more. But it plainly follows from this, that Pharaoh cannot have taken the fortress of Gaza while retreating before Nebuchadnezzar. For, in this case, Nebuchadnezzar would have been obliged to drive him thence before ever he could have reduced King Jehoiakim again to subjection. The assumption is difficult to reconcile with what Berosus says regarding the campaign of Nebuchadnezzar, viz., that the continued in the field till he heard of the death of his father. Add to this, that, as M. von Niebuhr very rightly says, "there is every military probability against it" (i.e., against the assumption that Gaza was reduced by Necho on his retreat). "If this fortress had stood out till the battle of Carchemish, then it is inconceivable that a routed eastern army should have taken the city during its retreat, even though there were, on the line of march, the strongest positions on the Orontes, in Lebanon, etc., where it might have taken its stand." Hence Niebuhr thinks it "infinitely more improbable either that Gaza was conquered before the battle of Carchemish, about the same time as Ashdod, and that Jeremiah, in Jer 47:1-7, predicts the approach of the army which was still engaged in the neighbourhood of Nineveh; or that the capture of the fortress did not take place till later, when Nebuchadnezzar was again engaged in Babylon, and that the prophet announces his return, not his first approach."
Rosenmüller and Nägelsbach

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1726

have declared in favour of the first of these suppositions. Both of them place the capture of Gaza in the time of Necho's march against the Assyrians under Josiah; Rosenmüller before the battle of Megiddo; Nägelsbach after that engagement, because he assumes, with all modern expositors, that Necho had landed with his army at the Bay of Acre. He endeavours to support this view by the observation that Necho, before marching farther north, sought to keep the way clear for a retreat to Egypt, since he would otherwise have been lost after the battle of Carchemish, if he did not previously reduce Gaza, the key of the high road to Egypt. In this, Nägelsbach rightly assumes that the heading, "before Pharaoh smote Gaza," was not intended to show the fulfilment of the prophecy in the conquest of Gaza by Necho soon afterwards, but merely states that Jeremiah predicts to the Philistines that they will be destroyed by a foe from the north, at a time when conquest by a foe from the north was impending over them. Rightly, too, does Niebuhr remark that, in support of the view that Gaza was taken after the battle at Carchemish, there is nothing more than the announcement of the attack from the north, and the arrangement of the prophecies in Jeremiah, in which that against the Philistines is placed after that about the battle of Carchemish. Hitzig and Graf lay great weight upon this order and arrangement, and thence conclude that all the prophecies against the nations in Jer 46-49, with the exception of that regarding Elam, were uttered in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. There are no sufficient grounds for this conclusion. The agreement between this prophecy now before us and that in Jer 46, as regards particular figures and expressions (Graf), is too insignificant to afford a proof that the two belong to the same time; nor is much to be made out of the point so strongly insisted on by Hitzig, that after the Egyptians, as the chief nation, had been treated of, the author properly brings forward those who, from the situation of their country, must be visited by war immediately before it is sent on the Egyptians. The main foundation for this view is taken from the notice by Herodotus (ii. 159), that Necho, after the battle at Magdolos, took the large Syrian city Κάδυτις. Magdolos is here taken as a variation of Megiddo, and Kadytis of

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1727

Gaza. But neither Hitzig nor Stark have proved the identity of Kadytis with Gaza, as we have already remarked on 2Ki 23:33; so that we cannot safely draw any conclusion, regarding the time when Gaza was taken, from that statement of Herodotus. In consequence of the want of evidence from other sources, the date of this event cannot be more exactly determined.
From the contents of this prophecy and its position among the oracles against the nations, we can draw no more than a very probable inference that it was not published before the fourth year of Jehoiakim, inasmuch as it is evidently but a further amplification of the sentence pronounced in that year against all the nations, and recorded in Jer 25. Thus all conjectures as to the capture of Gaza by Necho on his march to the Euphrates, before the battle at Carchemish, become very precarious. But the assumption is utterly improbable also, that Necho at a later period, whether in his flight before the Chaldeans, or afterwards, while Nebuchadnezzar was occupied in Babylon, undertook an expedition against Philistia: such a hypothesis is irreconcilable with the statement given in 2 Kings 24; 7. There is thus no course left open for us, but to understand, by the Pharaoh of the title here, not Necho, but his successor Hophra: this has been suggested by Rashi, who refers to Jer 37:5, Jer 37:11, and by Perizonius, in his Origg. Aegypt. p. 459, who founds on the notices of Herodotus (ii. 261) and of Diodorus Siculus, i. 68, regarding the naval battle between Apries on the one hand and the Cyprians and Phoenicians on the other. From these notices, it appears pretty certain that Pharaoh-Hophra sought to avenge the defeat of Necho on the Chaldeans, and to extend the power of Egypt in Asia. Hence it is also very probable that he took Gaza, with the view of getting into his hands this key of the highway to Egypt. This assumption we regard as the most probable, since nothing has been made out against it; there are no sufficient grounds for the opinion that this prophecy belongs to the same time as that in Jer 46.Contents of the Prophecy. - From the north there pours forth a river, inundating fields and cities, whereupon lamentation begins. Every one flees in haste before the sound of the

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1728

hostile army, for the day of desolation is come on all Philistia and Phoenicia (Jer 47:2-4). The cities of Philistia mourn, for the sword of the Lord is incessantly active among them (Jer 47:5-7). This brief prophecy thus falls into two strophes: in the first (Jer 47:2-4), the ruin that is breaking over Philistia is described; in the second (Jer 47:5-7), its operation on the country and on the people.

Verses 2-4

Jer 47:2-4"Thus saith Jahveh: Behold, waters shall rise up out of the north, and shall become an inundating stream, and they shall inundate the land and its fulness, cities and those who dwell in them; and men shall cry, and all the inhabitants of the land shall howl. Jer 47:3. Because of the sound of the trampling of the hoofs of his strong horses, because of the din of his chariots, the noise of his wheels, fathers to not look back to their children from weakness of hands; Jer 47:4. Because of the day that cometh to destroy all the Philistines, to cut off from Tyre and Zidon every one remaining as a helper; for Jahveh destroyeth the Philistines, the remnant of the coast of Caphtor. Jer 47:5. Baldness is come upon Gaza; Ashkelon is destroyed, the rest of their plain. How long wilt thou cut thyself? Jer 47:6. O sword of Jahveh, how long wilt thou not rest? Draw thyself back into thy sheath; rest, and be still. Jer 47:7. How canst thou be quiet, when Jahveh hath commanded thee? Against Ashkelon and against the sea-coast, there hath He appointed it."
The address opens with a figure. The hostile army that is to devastate Philistia is represented as a stream of water, breaking forth from the north, and swelling to an overflowing winter-torrent, that inundates the country ad cities with their inhabitants. The figure is often used: cf. Jer 46:7-8, where the Egyptian host is compared to the waves of the Nile; and Isa 8:7, where the Assyrian army is likened to the floods of the Euphrates. The simile is applied here in another way. The figure is taken from a strong spring of water, coming forth in streams out of the ground, in the north, and swelling to an overflowing winter-torrent, that pours out its floods over Philistia, laying it waste. "From the north" is used here as in Jer 46:20, and points back to Jer 1:13-14. "An inundating stream" is here employed as in Isa 30:20; "earth and its fulness, a city and those who dwell in it," as in Isa 8:16. In Jer 47:3

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1729

follows the application of the figure. It is a martial host that overflows the land, and with its mighty noise puts the inhabitants in such terror that they think only of a hasty flight; even fathers do not turn back to save their children. שׁעטהἅπ. λεγ., Syriac se‛aṭ , ‘'incedere , ‘'gradi, hence probably the stamping of hoofs. אבּירים, strong horses, as in Jer 8:16. לרכבּו, instead of the construct state, has perhaps been chosen only for the sake of introducing a variation; cf. Ewald, §290, a. הפנה, to turn the back, as in Jer 46:5. "Slackness of hands," i.e., utter loss of courage through terror; cf. Jer 6:24 (the form רפיון only occurs here). In Jer 47:4 the deeper source of fear is mentioned; "because of the day," i.e., because the day has come to destroy all the Philistines, namely, the day of the judgment determined by the Lord; cf. Jer 46:10. "In order to destroy every remnant helping Tyre and Zidon." שׂריד עזר are the Philistines, who could afford help to the Phoenicians in the struggle against the Chaldean power. This implies that the Phoenicians also shall perish without any one to help them. This indirect mention of the Phoenicians appears striking, but it is to be explained partly on the ground that Jeremiah has uttered special prophecies only against the chief enemies of Judah, and partly also perhaps from the historical relations, i.e., from the fact that the Philistines might have afforded help to the Phoenicians in the struggles against the great powers of the world. Hitzig unnecessarily seeks to take לצר וּלצידון as the object, and to expunge כּל־שׂריד עזר as a gloss. The objections which he raises against the construction are groundless, as is shown by such passages as Jer 44:7; Isa 14:22; 1Ki 14:10, etc. "The remaining helper" is the expression used, because the other nations that could help the Egyptians, viz., the Syrians and Phoenicians, had already succumbed to the Chaldean power. The destruction will be so great as this, because it is Jahveh who destroys the Philistines, the remnant of the coast of Caphtor. According to Amo 9:7; Deu 2:23, the Philistines came from Caphtor; hence שׁארית אי can only mean "what still remains of the people of Philistia who come from the coat of Caphtor," like "the remnant of the Philistines" in Amo 1:8. Opinions are divided as to

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1730

Caphtor. The prevailing view is that of Lakemacher, that Caphtor is the name of the island of Crete; but for this there are no tenable grounds: see on Zep 2:5; and Delitzsch on Genesis, S. 248, Aufl. 4. Dietrich (in Merx' Archiv. i. S. 313ff.) and Ebers (Aegypten u. die Bücher Moses, i. S. 130ff.) agree in thinking that Caphtor is the shore of the Delta, but they explain the name differently. Dietrich derives it from the Egyptian Kah - pet - Hôr (district of Hor), which he takes to be the environs of the city of Buto, and the lake called after it (the modern Burlos), not far from the Sebennytic mouth of the Nile; Ebers, following the tablet of Canopus, in which the Egyptian name Kfa (Kaf) is given as that of Phoenicia, derives the name from Kaf-t-ur, i.e., the great Kefa, as the ancient seat of the Phoenicians on the shore of the Delta must have been called. But both explanations are still very doubtful, though there is no question about the migration of the Philistines from Egypt into Canaan.

Verses 5-7

The prophet sees, in the spirit, the threatened desolation as already come upon Philistia, and portrays it in its effects upon the people and the country. "Baldness (a sign of the deepest and most painful sorrow) has come upon Gaza;" cf. Mic 1:16. נדמתה is rendered by the Vulgate conticuit. After this Graf and Nägelsbach take the meaning of being "speechless through pain and sorrow;" cf. Lam 2:10. Others translate "to be destroyed." Both renderings are lexically permissible, for דּמה and דּמם have both meanings. In support of the first, the parallelism of the members has been adduced; but this is not decisive, for figurative and literal representations are often interchanged. On the whole, it is impossible to reach any definite conclusion; for both renderings give suitable ideas, and these not fundamentally different in reality the one from the other. שׁארית עמקם, "the rest of their valley" (the suffix referring to Gaza and Ashkelon), is the low country round about Gaza and Ashkelon, which are specially mentioned from their being the two chief fortresses of Philistia. עמק is suitably applied to the low-lying belt of the country, elsewhere called שׁפלה, "the low country," as distinguished from the hill-country; for עמק does not always denote a deep valley, but is also sometimes used, as in Jos 17:16, etc., of the

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1731

plain of Jezreel, and of other plains which are far from being deeply-sunk valleys. Thus there is no valid reason for following the arbitrary translation of the lxx, καὶ τὰ κατάλοιπα  ̓Ενακείμ, and changing עמקם into ענקים, as Hitzig and Graf do; more especially is it utterly improbable that in the Chaldean period Anakim were still to be found in Philistia. The mention of them, moreover, is out of place here; and still less can we follow Graf in his belief that the inhabitants of Gath are the "rest of the Anakim." In the last clause of Jer 47:5, Philistia is set forth as a woman, who tears her body (with her nails) in despair, makes incisions on her body; cf. Jer 16:6; Jer 41:5. The question, "How long dost thou tear thyself?" forms a transition to the plaintive request, "Gather thyself," i.e., draw thyself back into thy scabbard. But the seer replies, "How can it rest? for Jahveh hath given it a commission against Ashkelon and the Philistine sea-coast." For תּשׁקטי, in Jer 47:7, we must read the 3rd pers. fem. תּשׁקט, as the following להּ shows. The form probably got into the text from an oversight, through looking at תּשׁקטי in Jer 47:6. חוף, "the sea-coast," a designation of Philistia, as in Eze 25:16.
The prophecy concludes without a glance at the Messianic future. The threatened destruction of the Philistines has actually begun with the conquest of Philistia by Nebuchadnezzar, but has not yet culminated in the extermination of the people. The extermination and complete extirpation are thus not merely repeated by Ezek; Eze 25:15., but after the exile the threats are once more repeated against the Philistines by Zechariah (Zec 9:5): they only reached their complete fulfilment when, as Zechariah announces, in the addition made to Isa 14:30., their idolatry also was removed from them, and their incorporation into the Church of God was accomplished through judgment. Cf. the remarks on Zep 2:10. Concerning Moab
The Moabites had spread themselves on the eastern side of the Dead Sea, where the Emims dwelt in former times (Deu 2:10). But previous to the immigration of the Israelites into Canaan, the Amorites, under King Sihon, had already taken forcible possession of the northern portion of this territory as

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1732

far as the Arnon (Num 21:13). The Israelites, on their march through the desert, were not to treat the Moabites as enemies, nor touch their territory (Deu 2:9; cf. Jdg 11:15, Jdg 11:18). But when Sihon, king of the Amorites, had been slain by the Israelites, and his kingdom subdued, the Israelites took possession of the territory north of the Arnon, that had formerly belonged to the Moabites, but had been conquered by Sihon: this was given to the tribe of Reuben for an inheritance (Num 21:24.; Deu 2:32-36; Jos 13:15.). The Moabites could not get over this loss of the northern half of their country. The victory of the Israelites over the powerful kings of the Amorites, viz., Sihon in Heshbon and Og of Bashan, inspired them with terror for the power of this people; so that their king Balak, while the Israelites were encamped in the steppes of Moab opposite Jericho, fetched Balaam the sorcerer from Mesopotamia, with the design of destroying Israel through the power of his anathema. And when this plan did not succeed, since Balaam was obliged, against his will, to bless Israel instead of cursing them, the Moabites sought to weaken them, and to render them powerless to do any injury, by seducing them to idolatry (cf. Num 22-25). Such malicious conduct was shown repeatedly afterwards. Not long after the death of Joshua, Eglon the king of Joab, aided by the Ammonites and Amalekites, crossed the Jordan and took Jericho, which he made the centre of operations for keeping the Israelites under subjection: these were thus oppressed for eighteen years, until they succeeded in defeating the Moabites and driving them back into their own land, after Ehud had assassinated King Eglon (Jdg 3:12.). At a later period, Saul made war on them (1Sa 14:47); and David completely subdued them, severely chastised them, and made them tributary (2Sa 8:2). But after the death of Ahab, to whom King Mesha had paid a very considerable yearly tribute (2Ki 3:4), they revolted from Israel (2Ki 1:1; 2Ki 3:5). In the time of Jehoshaphat, in conjunction with the Ammonites and a portion of the Edomites, they even invaded Judah, with the design of taking Jerusalem; but they ruined themselves through mutual discords, so that Jehoshaphat obtained a glorious victory over them (2 Chron 20).

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1733

It was possibly also with the view of taking revenge for this exhibition of malicious spirit that the king of Judah afterwards, in conjunction with Joram king of Israel, carried war into their country, and defeated them (2 Kings 3:6-27). Still later, mention is made of an invasion of Israel by Moabite hosts during the reign of Joash (2Ki 13:20); and in the time of Hezekiah, we find them once more in possession of their ancient territory to the north of the Arnon, at a time when the trans-Jordanic tribes of Israel had been carried away by the Assyrians into exile.
Judging from these aphoristic notices, the Moabites, on the division of the kingdom after Solomon's death, seem to have remained tributary to the kingdom of the ten tribes until the death of Ahab; then they revolted, but soon afterwards were once more reduced to subjection by Joram and Jehoshaphat. Still later, they certainly made several invasions into Israel, but without permanent result; nor was it till the carrying away of the trans-Jordanic tribes by the Assyrians that they succeeded in regaining permanent possession of the depopulated land of Reuben, their former territory. This account, however, has been modified in several important respects by the recent discovery of an inscription on a monument raised by King Mesha after a victory he had gained; this "Moabite stone" was found in the neighbourhood of the ancient Dibon. The deciphering of the long inscription of thirty-four liens on this memorial stone, so far as success has followed the attempts hitherto made, has issued in its giving important disclosures concerning the relation of Moab to Israel.^[17]
From these we gather that Omri,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1734

king of Israel, had taken possession of the district of Medeba, and that the Moabites were heavily oppressed by him and his successor for forty years, until King Mesha succeeded, through the help of his god Chemosh, in regaining the territory that had been seized by the Israelites. We may further with certainty conclude, from various statements in this inscription, that the Moabites were by no means exterminated by the Israelites, when they took possession of the country to the north of the Arnon, which had been seized by the Amorites; they continued to live beside and among the Israelites. Moreover, since the tribe of Reuben was chiefly engaged in the rearing of cattle, and thus appropriated the pastoral districts of the country, the Moabites were not utterly, at least not permanently subdued, but rather took every opportunity of weakening the Israelites, in order not merely to reclaim their old possessions, but also to make themselves independent of Israel. This object they seem to have actually attained, even so soon as immediately after the death of Solomon. They continued independent until the powerful Omri restored the supremacy of Israel in the territory of Reuben; and Moab continued subject for forty years, at the end of which King Mesha again succeeded in breaking the yoke of Israel after the death of Ahab. Thenceforward, Israel never again got the upper hand, though Jeroboam II (as we are entitled to conclude from 2Ki 14:25) may have disputed the supremacy with the Moabites for a time.
Amos (Amo 2:1-3) and Isaiah (Jer 15 and 16) have already,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1735

before Jeremiah, threatened Moab with destruction, because of the acts of hostility against Israel of which they have been guilty. We have no historical notice concerning the fulfilment of these threatenings. Inasmuch as the power of the Assyrians in Eastern Asia was broken through the defeat of Sennacherib before Jerusalem, the Moabites may possibly have asserted their independence against the Assyrians. Certainly it seems to follow, from the remark in 1Ch 5:17 (that the families of Gad were reckoned by genealogies in the days of Jotham king of Judah), that some of the Israelites on the east of Jordan came for a time under the sway of Judah. But even though this were allowed to hold true of the tribe of Reuben also, such a mastery could not have lasted long, since even towards the end of Jotham's reign, Pekah the king of Israel joined with Hazael king of Syria in war against Judah (2Ki 15:37); and during the reign of Ahaz, Rezin invaded Gilead, and penetrating as far as the seaport of Elath, took it from Judah (2Ki 16:6). At all events, up till the time of Nebuchadnezzar, the threats of Amos and Isaiah had attained only the feeblest beginnings of fulfilment; and (as is abundantly evident from the prophecy in this chapter) the Moabites were then more powerful than ever they had been before, and in undisturbed possession also of that portion of their ancient territory lying north of the Arnon, which had been taken from them by Sihon the Amorite; and after his defeat, the victorious Israelites had again apportioned it to the tribe of Reuben.
This prophecy of Jeremiah concerning Moab is to be explained on the ground of these historical relations. The day of ruin was to begin with the appearance of the Chaldeans in Palestine; this day had been predicted not merely by Amos and Isaiah, but even by Balaam, on the occasion of the first conflict of the Moabites with Israel. Jeremiah accordingly takes up anew the utterances of the old prophets regarding Moab which had not yet been fulfilled, but were now about to receive their accomplishment: these he reproduces in his own peculiar manner, taking as his foundation the oracular sentences of Isaiah concerning Moab, and combining these by means of the utterances of Amos and Balaam, not only regarding Moab, but also regarding the whole heathen world now ripe

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1736

for judgment; and out of all this he frames a comprehensive announcement of the ruin to fall on this people, so haughty, and so filled with hatred against Israel.^[18]
The contents of this announcement are as follow: - The chief cities of Moab are perished, and with them their fame. Plans are being concocted for their destruction. On all sides there is a crying over the devastation, and wailing, and flight; Chemosh, with his priests and princes, wanders into exile, and country and city are laid waste (Jer 48:1-8). Let Moab escape with wings, in order to avoid the destruction; for although they have, in all time past, lived securely in their own land, they shall now be driven out of their dwellings, and come to dishonour with their god Chemosh, in spite of the bravery of their heroes (Jer 48:9-15). The destruction of Moab draws near, their glory perishes, the whole country and all its towns are laid waste, and the power of Moab is broken (Jer 48:16-25). All this befalls them for their pride and loftiness of spirit; because of this they are punished, with the destruction of their glorious vines and their harvest; and the whole land becomes filled with sorrow and lamentation over the desolation, and the extermination of all those who make offerings to idols (Jer 48:26-35). Meanwhile the prophet mourns with the hapless people, who are broken like a despised vessel (Jer 48:36-38). Moab becomes the laughing-stock and the horror of all around: the enemy captures all their fortresses, and none shall escape the ruin (Jer 48:39-44). Fire goes out from Heshbon and destroys the whole land, and the

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1737

people must go into captivity; but at the end of the days, the Lord will turn the captivity of Moab (Jer 48:45-47). According to this view of the whole, this prophecy falls into seven strophes of unequal length, of which every one concludes either with אמר יהוה or נאם. The middle one, which is also the longest (Jer 48:26-35), forms an apparent exception, inasmuch as נאם יהוה does not stand at the end, but in the middle of Jer 48:35; while in the second last strophe (Jer 48:39-44), the last two verses (Jer 48:43 and Jer 48:44) end with this formula.

Chap. 48

Verses 1-8

Jer 48:1-8Calamities to come on Moab. - Jer 48:1. "Thus saith Jahveh of hosts, the God of Israel, Woe to Nebo, for it is laid waste! Kiriathaim is come to dishonour, it is taken: the fortress is come to dishonour and broken down. Jer 48:2. Moab's glory is no more. In Heshbon they have devised evil against her, [saying], Come, and let us cut her off from [being] a nation: thou also, O Madmen, art brought to silence; the sword shall go after thee. Jer 48:3. A sound of crying from Horonaim, desolation and great destruction. Jer 48:4. Moab is destroyed; her little ones have caused a cry to be heard. Jer 48:5. For they ascend the ascent of Luhith with weeping - weeping: for on the descent of Horonaim the enemies have heard a cry of destruction. Jer 48:6. Flee, save your life! and be like one destitute in the wilderness. Jer 48:7. For, because they trust [was] in thy works, and in thy treasures, thou also shalt be taken; and Chemosh shall go into captivity, his priests and his princes together. Jer 48:8. The destroyer shall come to every city, and no city shall escape; and the valley shall perish, and the plain shall be laid waste, as Jahveh hath said."
With the exclamation "Woe!" Jeremiah transports the hearers of the word of God at once into the midst of the catastrophe which is to come on Moab; this is with the view of humbling the pride of this people, and chastening them for their sins. The woe is uttered over Nebo, but holds also of the towns named afterwards. Nebo is not the mountain of that name (Deu 32:49; Deu 34:1), but the city, which probably did not lie far from the peak in the mountain-range of Abarim, which bore the same name (Num 32:3, Num 32:38; Isa 15:2), although in the Onomasticon, s.v. Ναβαῦ, the situation of the mountain is given as being six Roman miles from Heshbon, towards the

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1738

west, and s.v. Ναβώρ, that of the city, eight Roman miles south from Heshbon, for both accounts point to a situation in the south-west. The Arab. name nba= is still applied to some ruins; cf. Robinson's Palestine, iii. p. 170. "Kiriathaim is taken." The site of this town, mentioned as early as Gen 14:5, has been fixed, since the time of Burckhardt, as that of a mass of ruins called et Teim, about five miles south of Heshbon; but Dietrich, in Merx' Archiv. i. S. 337ff., has shown this is incorrect. According to Eusebius, in his Onomasticon, Kiriathaim lay ten Roman miles to the west of Medeba: this suits not merely the position of et Teim, but also the ruins of Kereyat south-west from Medeba, on the ridge of Mount Attarus, a little to the south of M'kaur (Machaerus), and of Baara in the Wady Zerka Maein, where also is the plain mentioned in Gen 14:5, either in the plain stretching direct east from Kereyat between Wady Zerka Maein and Wady Wal, or south-east in the beautiful plain el Kura, described by Burckhardt, p. 371ff., between the Wal and the Mojeb. Nebo and Kiriathaim lay on the eastern border of the high range of mountains, and seem to be comprehended under המּשׂגּב, "the height, the high fortress," in the third clause of Jer 48:1, as the representatives of the mountain country of Moab. Various expositors, certainly, take the word as a proper name designating an elevated region; Graf and Nägelsbach take it to be a name of Kir-Moab (Kir-heres, Kir-haresheth, Jer 48:31, Jer 48:36), the chief fortress in the country, the modern Kerek in the southern part of Moab; but no valid proof has been adduced. By "the height" Hitzig understands the highlands, which learn of the fall of these towns in the lowlands, and feel this disgrace that has come on Moab, but have not yet themselves been taken. But this view is untenable, because the towns of Nebo and Kiriathaim are not situated in the level country. Again, since הובשׁה is common to the two clauses, the distinction between נלכּדה and חתּה could hardly be pressed so far as to make the latter the opposite of the former, in the sense of being still unconquered. The meaning rather is, that through Nebo's being laid waste, and the capture of Kiriathaim, the fortress on which the Moabites trusted is no more. And to this Jer 48:3 appropriately adds, "the boasting of Moab

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1739

is gone," i.e., Moab has no more ground for boasting. "In Heshbon they (the enemy, or the conquerors) plot evil against Moab." Heshbon was formerly the capital of the Amorite kingdom of Sihon (Num 21:26; Deu 2:24, etc.), and was assigned to the tribe of Reuben (Jos 13:17); but because it lay on the boundary of the territory belonging to the tribe, it was given up to the Gadites, and set apart as a Levitical city (Jos 21:37). It lay ten Roman miles east from the Jordan, opposite Jericho, almost intermediate between the Arnon and the Jabbok, and is still pointed out, though in ruins, under the old name Heshbân (see on Num 32:37). At the time of Jeremiah it was taken possession of by the Ammonites (Jer 49:3), consequently it was the frontier town of the Moabite territory at that time; and being such, it is here named as the town where the enemy, coming from the north, deliberate regarding the conquest of Moab - "meditate evil," i.e., decide upon conquest and devastation. The suffix of עליה refers to Moab as a country, and hence is feminine; cf. v. 4. "We will destroy it (Moab) מגּוי, so that it shall no longer be a nation." Just as in בּחשׁבּון חשׁבוּ there is a play on the words, so is there also in the expression מדמן תּדּמּי which follows. This very circumstance forms an argument for taking Madmen as a proper name, instead of an appellative, as Venema and Hitzig have done, after the example of the lxx: "Yea, thou shalt be destroyed (and made into) a dunghill." In support of this rendering they point to 2Ki 10:27; Ezr 6:11. But the verb דּמם, in its meaning, ill accords with מדמן in the sense of a dung-heap, and in this case there would be no foundation for a play upon the words (Graf). It is no proof of the non-existence of a place called Madmen in Moab, that it is not mentioned elsewhere; Madmena in the tribe of Benjamin (Isa 10:31), and Madmanna in Judah (Jos 15:31), are also mentioned but once. These passages rather show that the name Madmen was not uncommon; and it was perhaps with reference to this name that Isaiah (Isa 25:10) chose the figure of the dunghill. דּמם, to be silent, means, in the Niphal, to be brought to silence, be exterminated, perish; cf. Jer 49:26; Jer 25:37; Jer 8:14, etc. As to the form תּדּמּי instead of תּדּמּי , cf. Ewald, §140, b; Gesenius, §67, Rem. 5. The following clause refers to Madmen: "after thee shall the sword

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1740

go;" cf. Jer 9:15.

Verses 3-4

A cry is heard from Horonaim against violence and destruction. The words שׁד ושׁב are to be taken as the cry itself; cf. Jer 4:20; Jer 20:8. The city of Horonaim, mentioned both here and in Isa 15:5 in connection with Luhith, lay on a slope, it would seem, not far from Luhith. Regarding this latter place we find it remarked in the Onomasticon: est usque hodie vicus inter Areopolim et Zoaram nomine Luitha (Λουειθά). As to  ̓Ωροναείμ, the Onomasticon says no more than πόλις Μωὰβ ὲν  ̔Ιερεμίᾳ (ed. Lars. p. 376). The destruction over which the outcry is made comes on Moab. By "Moab" Graf refuses to understand the country or its inhabitants, but rather the ancient capital of the country, Ar-Moab (Num 21:28; Isa 15:1), in the valley of the Arnon, which is also simply called Ar in Num 21:15; Deu 2:9. But, as Dietrich has already shown (S. 329ff.), the arguments adduced in support of this view are insufficient to prove the point.^[19] שׁבר, to break,of a nation or a city (Jer 19:11; Isa 14:25, etc.), as it were, to ruin, - is here used of the country or kingdom. צעוריה is for צעיריה, as in Jer 14:3. The little ones of Moab, that raise a cry, are neither the children (Vulgate, Dahler, Maurer), nor the small towns (Hitzig), nor the people of humble condition, but cives Moabi ad statum miserum dejecti (Kueper). The lxx have rendered εἰς Ζογόρα (i.e., צעורה), which reading is preferred by J. D. Michaelis, Ewald, Umbreit, Graf, Nägelsbach, but without sufficient reason; for neither the occurrence of Zoar in combination with Horonaim in Jer 48:34, nor the parallel passage Isa 15:5, will prove the point. Isa 15:5 is not a parallel to this verse, but to Jer 48:34; however, the train of thought is different

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1741

from that before us here. Besides, Jeremiah writes the name of the town צער (not צוער), cf. v. 34, as in Isa 15:5; Deu 34:3; Gen 13:10 (צוער occurs only in Gen 19:22, Gen 19:30); hence it is unlikely that צעור has been written by mistake for צוער.

Verse 5

In Jer 48:5 this idea is further elucidated. The inhabitants flee, weeping as they go, towards the south, before the conquering enemy advancing from the north, up the ascent of Luhith, and down the descent of Horonaim. The idea is taken from Isa 15:5, but applied by Jeremiah in his own peculiar manner; יעלה בּו is changed into יעלה בּכי, and the notion of weeping is thereby intensified. We take בּכי as an adverbial accusative, but in fact it is to be rendered like the preceding בּבכי; and יעלה stands with an indefinite nominative: "one ascends = they ascend," not "weeping rises over weeping," as Hitzig, Graf, and others take it. For, in the latter case, בּבכי could not be separated from בּכי, nor stand first; cf. the instances adduced by Graf, שׁנה בּשׁנה and עין בּעין. The form חלּחות for חלּחית is either an error of transcription or an optional form, and there is no ground for taking the word as appellative, as Hitzig does, "the ascent of boards, i.e., as boards tower one above another, so does weeping rise," - an unnatural figure, and one devoid of all taste. The last words of the second member of the verse present some difficulty, chiefly on account of צרי, which the lxx have omitted, and which Ewald and Umbreit set down as spurious, although (as Graf rightly remarks) they do not thereby explain how it came into the text. To suppose, with the Rabbinical writers, that the construct state צרי stands for the absolute, is not only inadmissible, as being against the principles of grammar, but also contrary to the whole scope of the passage. The context shows that the clamour cannot proceed from the enemy, but only from the fugitive Moabites. Only two explanations are possible: either צרי must be taken in the sense of angustiae, and in connection with צעקת, "straits, distress of crying," a cry of distress, as De Wette does; or, "oppressors of the cry of distress," as Nägelsbach takes it. We prefer the former, in spite of the objection of Graf, that the expression "distress of crying," for "a cry of distress," would be a strange one: for this objection

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1742

may be made against his own explanation, that צרי means the bursting open of the mouth in making a loud cry; and צרי זעקה is a loud outcry for help.

Verse 6

Only by a precipitate flight into the desert can the Moabites save even their lives. The summons to flee is merely a rhetorical expression for the thought that there is no safety to be had in the country. To ותּהינה in Jer 48:6 we must supply נפשׁות as the subject: "your souls shall be." Ewald would change נפשׁכם into נפשׁיכם; but this proposal has against it the fact that the plural form נפשׁים is found in but a single case, Eze 13:20, and נפשׁות everywhere else: besides, נפשׁ is often used in the singular of several persons, as in 2Sa 19:6, and may further be easily taken here in a distributive sense; cf. מלּטוּ אישׁ נפשׁו, Jer 51:6. The assumption of C. B. Michaelis, Rosenmüller, Maurer, and of the translators of our "Authorized" English Version, that תּהינה is the second person, and refers to the cities, i.e., their inhabitants, is against the context. ערוער cannot here be the name of a town, because neither Aroer in the tribe of Reuben, which was situated on the Arnon, nor Aroer of the tribe of Gad, which was before Rabbath-Ammon, lay in the wilderness; the comparison, too, of the fugitives to a city is unsuitable. The clause reminds us of Jer 17:6, and ערוער = the ערער of that passage; the form found here is either an error of transcription caused by thinking of Aroer, or a play upon the name of the city, for the purpose of pointing out the fate impending over it.

Verses 7-8

Moab will not be saved from destruction by any trust on their works or on their treasures. The lxx, Vulgate, and Syriac render מעשׂיך by fortresses, hence Ewald would read מעוניך instead; but there is no ground for the change, since the peculiar rendering alluded to has evidently originated from מעשׂה having been confounded with מעוז. Others, as Dahler, refer the word to idols; but these are always designated as מעשׂי יד. Graf translates "property," and points to 1Sa 25:2; Exo 23:16; but this meaning also has really nothing to support it, for מעשׂה in these passages denotes only agriculture and its produce, and the combination of the word with אוצרות in this passage does not require such a rendering. We abide by the common meaning of "doings" or "works," not evil deeds specially (Hitzig), but

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1743

"all that Moab undertakes." Neither their efforts to maintain and increase their power, nor their wealth, will avail them in any way. They shall be overcome. Moab is addressed as a country or kingdom. לכד, to seize, capture; of a land, to take, conquer. Chemosh, with his priests and princes, shall go into exile. כּמישׁ is perhaps a mere error of the copyist for כּמושׁ, Chemosh, the chief deity of the Moabites and Ammonites, worshipped as a king and the war-god of his people: see on Num 21:29. As in the last-named passage the Moabites are called the people of Chemosh, so here, not merely the priests, but also the princes of Moab, are called his priests and his princes. The Kethib יחד is not to be changed, although Jeremiah elsewhere always uses יחדּו, which is substituted in the Qeri; cf. Jer 49:3. In confirmation of this, it is added, in Jer 48:8, that all the cities of Moab, without exception, shall be laid waste, and the whole country, valley and plain, shall be brought to ruin. המּישׁור, "the level," is the table-land stretching from the Arnon to Heshbon, and north-eastwards as far as Rabbath-Ammon, and which originally belonged to the Moabites, hence called "the fields of Moab" in Num. 21:40; but it was taken from them by the Amorites, and after the conquest of the latter was taken possession of by the Israelites (Deu 3:10; Deu 4:43; Jos 13:9), but at that time had been taken back once more by the Moabites. העמק is the valley of the Jordan, commonly called הערבה, as in Jos 13:27 and Jos 13:19; here it is that portion of the valley towards the west which bounds the table-land. אשׁר can only be taken in a causal signification, "because," as in Jer 16:13, or in a relative meaning, quod, or "as."

Verse 9

Jer 48:9Moab is laid waste, and its inhabitants carried captive. - Jer 48:9. "Give pinions to Moab, for he will flee and get away, and his cities shall become a waste, with no one dwelling in them. Jer 48:10.Cursed is he that doeth the work of Jahveh negligently, and cursed is he that restraineth his sword from blood. Jer 48:11.Moab hath been at ease from his youth, and lay still upon his lees; he was not poured out from vessel to vessel, neither hath he gone into captivity, therefore his taste hath remained in him, and his smell hath not changed. Jer 48:12.Therefore, behold, days come, saith Jahveh, when I will send

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1744

to him those who pour out, and they shall pour him out; and they shall empty his vessels, and break their bottles. Jer 48:13.And Moab shall be ashamed of Chemosh, as the house of Israel was ashamed of Bethel their confidence. Jer 48:14.How can ye say, We are mighty, and men of valour for the war? Jer 48:15.Moab is laid waste, and people ascend into his cities, and the choice of his young men go down to the slaughter, saith the King, whose name is Jahveh of hosts."
The devastation will come so suddenly, that Moab, in order to escape it, uses wings for enabling him to flee from it. The request "give" is not ironical, but a mere rhetorical employment of the idea that wings would be necessary in order to escape. ציץ, which elsewhere means a flower, here signifies wings or waving plumes, as in the Targum on Psa 139:9, and in the Rabbinical writings. נצא, written with א for the sake of obtaining similarity of sound, stands for נצה = נצץ, to flee.

Verses 10-12

The devastation is a work of the Lord, and those who execute it must carry out the divine decree, so that they may not bring the curse upon themselves. The first clause is taken quite generally: the more exact specification of the work of the Lord follows in the second clause; it is the employment of the sword against Moab. "His sword" does not mean Jahveh's, but the sword carried by the devastator. רמיּה is used adverbially, but not in the sense of "deceitfully," rather "carelessly, negligently;" cf. כּף רמיּה, Pro 10:4; Pro 12:24. In Jer 48:11 follows the reason why the judgment has necessarily come on Moab. Moab is compared to old wine that has lain long on its lees, and thereby preserved its flavour and smell unchanged. The taste and odour of Moab signify his disposition towards other nations, particularly towards Israel, the people of God. Good wine becomes stronger and more juicy by lying pretty long on its lees (see on Isa 25:6); inferior wine, however, becomes thereby more harsh and thick. The figure is used here in the latter sense, after Zep 1:12. Moab's disposition towards Israel was harsh and bitter; the people were arrogant and proud (Jer 48:29.; Isa 16:6), and so hostile towards Israel, that they sought every opportunity of injuring them (see above, p. 385f., and the comments on 2Sa 8:2). From his youth, i.e., from the time when

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1745

Moab, after subduing the Emims (Deu 2:10), had established himself in his own land, or had become enrolled among the nations of history, - from that time forward had he remained undisturbed in his own land, i.e., without being driven out of it, had not gone into captivity (as is shown by the figure of the wine poured from one vessel into another). In this way there is a qualification made of the general statement that he remains at rest on his lees, and undisturbed. For Moab has often carried on wars, and even suffered many defeats, but has never yet been driven from his own land; nor had the temporary dependence on Israel exercised any transforming influence on the ordinary life of the people, for they were simply made tributary. This quiet continuance in the country is to cease. The God of Israel "will send to them cellarmen (Germ. Schröter), who shall bring them out of the cellar" (Germ. ausschroten), as Luther translates Jer 48:12. "Schröter" are men who bring the wine-casks out of the cellar; for "schroten" means to bring out heavy burdens, especially full casks on a strong kind of hand-barrow (Germ. Hebewerkzeug), like a ladder in appearance. צעים (from צעה, to bend, incline) are those who incline a barrel or vessel for the purpose or pouring out its contents. These will not merely empty the vessels, but also break the pitchers; i.e., not merely carry away the Moabites, but also break down their political organization, and destroy their social arrangements.

Verses 13-15

In this way Moab will come to dishonour through his god Chemosh, i.e., experience his powerlessness and nothingness, and perish with him, just as Israel (the ten tribes) came to dishonour through Bethel, i.e., through their golden calf at Bethel. As to the form מבטחם, with Segol in the pretone, cf. Ewald, §70, a; Olshausen, Gram. S. 377. Moab will then be no longer able to boast of his valour; this is the meaning of the question in Jer 48:14 : on this term in the address, cf. Jer 2:23; Jer 8:8. In Jer 48:15 it is further stated that the result will show this: "Moab is laid waste." ועריה עלה is variously interpreted. An explanation which has met with much acceptance, but which nevertheless is really untenable, is founded on Jdg 20:40 ("The whole city went up towards heaven" i.e., in smoke and fire): "As for his cities, fire or smoke ascends;" but there is no

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1746

mention here either of smoke or fire. Kimchi long ago came near the truth when he sought to find the subject שׁדד in shudad שׁדּד: "and the devastator comes against his cities." However, the contrast between עלה and ירדוּ is not fully brought out in this way: it is better to leave the subject indeterminate: "and his cities they climb" (Kueper), or: "they go up to his cities" (Böttcher, Neue Aehrenlese, ii. 163). The enemy who mounts the cities is evidently intended. The change שׁדּד into שׁדד is both unnecessary and unsuitable; but J. D. Michaelis, Ewald, Dahler, Graf, after making the alteration, translate, "The destroyer of Moab and of his cities draws near." Hitzig justly remarks, in opposition to this conjecture: "There is nothing to justify the mere placing of the subject at the head of the sentence (contrast Jer 48:8, Jer 48:18); besides, one does not see why the cities of Moab are distinguished from Moab itself; and cf. 20b." ירד לבּטח, "to sink down to the slaughter," cf. Jer 50:27; and on this use of ירד, Isa 34:7. The enemy ascends into the cities, the young soldiers of Moab descend to the shambles. This threatening is enforced by the addition, "saith the King," etc. Jahveh is called the King, in contrast with the belief of the Moabites, that their god Chemosh was the king of his people (see on Jer 48:7). The true King of the Moabites also is Jahveh, the God of hosts, i.e., the Ruler of the whole world.

Verses 16-17

Jer 48:16-17Moab's glory is departed. - Jer 48:16."The destruction of Moab is near to come, and his trouble hastens rapidly. Jer 48:17.Bewail him, all [ye who are] round about him, and all who know his name! Say, How the rod of strength is broken, the staff of majesty! Jer 48:18.Come down from [thy] glory, and sit in the drought, [thou] inhabitants, daughter of Dibon; for the destroyer of Moab hath come up against thee, he hath destroyed thy strongholds. Jer 48:19.Stand by the way, and watch, O inhabitants of Aroer! ask him who flees, and her that has escaped; say, What has happened? Jer 48:20.Moab is ashamed, for it is broken down: howl and cry out; tell it in Arnon, that Moab is laid waste. Jer 48:21.And judgment hath come upon the country of the plain, upon Holon, and upon Jahzah, and upon Mephaath, Jer 48:22.And upon Dibon, and upon Nebo, and upon Beth-diblathaim, Jer 48:23.And upon Kirjathaim, and upon Beth-gamul, and upon Beth-meon, Jer 48:24.

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1747

And upon Kerioth, and upon Bozrah, and upon all the cities of the land of Moab, those that are far off and those that are near. Jer 48:25.The horn of Moab is cut off, ad his arm is broken, saith Jahveh."
The downfall of Moab will soon begin. Jer 48:16 is an imitation of Deu 32:35; cf. Isa 13:22; Isa 56:1. The fall of the Moabite power and glory will be so terrible, that all the nations, near ad distant, will have pity on him. The summons to lament, Jer 48:17, is not a mockery, but is seriously meant, for the purpose of expressing the idea that the downfall of so mighty and glorious a power will rouse compassion. The environs of Moab are the neighbouring nations, and "those who know his name" are those who live far off, and have only heard about him. The staff, the sceptre, is the emblem of authority; cf. Eze 19:11-12, Eze 19:14, and Psa 110:2.

Verses 18-20

In Jer 48:18-25 is further described the downfall of this strong and glorious power. The inhabitants if Dibon are to come down from their glory and sit in misery; those of Aroer are to ask the fugitives what has happened, that they may learn that the whole table-land on to the Arnon has been taken by the enemy; and they are to howl over the calamity. The idea presented in Jer 48:18 is an imitation of that in Isa 47:1, "Come down, O daughter of Babylon, sit in the dust;" but רדי is intensified by the addition of מכּבוד, and וּשׁבי על is changed into  וּשׁבי בצּמא (the Kethib ישׁבי has evidently been written by mistake for וּשׁבי, the Qeri). צמא elsewhere means "thirst;" but "sit down in the thirst" would be too strange an expression; hence צמא must here have the meaning of  צמא, Isa 44:3, "the thirsty arid land:" thus it remains a question whether we should point the word צמא, or take צמא as another form of צמא, as חלב sa ,צîא fo mro is of חלב, Eze 23:19. There is no sufficient reason why Hitzig and Ewald should give the word a meaning foreign to it, from the Arabic or Syriac. Dibon lay about four miles north from the Arnon, at the foot of a mountain, in a very beautiful plain, where, under the name of Dibân, many traces of walls, and a well by the wayside, hewn out of the rock, are still to be found (Seetzen, i. S. 409f.). Hence it must have been well provided with water, even though we should be obliged to understand by "the water of Dimon" (Dibon), which Isaiah mentions (Isa 15:9),

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1748

the river Arnon, which is about three miles off. The command to "sit down in an arid land" thus forms a suitable figure, representing the humiliation and devastation of Dibon. That the city was fortified, is evident from the mention of the fortifications in the last clause. ישׁבת , as in Jer 46:19. Aroer was situated on the north bank of the Arnon (Mojeb), where its ruins still remain, under the old name Arâ'ir (Burckhardt, p. 372). It was a frontier town, between the kingdom of Sihon (afterwards the territory of the Israelites) and the possession of the Moabites (Deu 2:36; Deu 3:12; Deu 4:48; Jos 12:2; Jos 13:9, Jos 13:16). But after the Moabites had regained the northern portion of their original territory, it lay in the midst of the land. The fugitives here represented as passing by are endeavouring, by crossing the Arnon, to escape from the enemy advancing from the north, and subduing the country before them. נס ונמלטה means fugitives of every kind. The co-ordination of the same word or synonymous terms in the masc. and fem. serves to generalize the idea; see on Isa 3:1, and Ewald, §172, c. In נמלטה  the tone is retracted through the influence of the distinctive accent; the form is participial. The question, "What has happened?" is answered in Jer 48:20. כּי חתּה, "for (= certainly) it is broken down." The Kethib הלילי וּזעקי must not be changed. Moab is addressed: with הגּידוּ is introduced the summons, addressed to individuals, to proclaim at the Arnon the calamity that has befallen the country to the north of that river.

Verses 21-25

In Jer 48:21-24 the general idea of Moab's being laid waste is specialized by the enumeration of a long list of towns on which judgment has come. They are towns of ארץ המּישׁור, the table-land to the north of the Arnon, the names of which early all occur in the Pentateuch and Joshua as towns in the tribe of Reuben. But Holon is mentioned only here. According to Eusebius, in the Onomasticon, s.v.  ̓Ιεσσά, Jahzah was situated between Μηδαβῶν (Medeba) and Δηβοῦς (Dibon); according to Jerome, between Medeba and Debus, or Deblathai; but from Num 21:23, we conclude that it lay in an easterly direction, on the border of the desert, near the commencement of the Wady Wale. Mophaath or Mephaath, where, according to the Onomasticon, a Roman garrison was placed, on account of the near proximity of the desert, is to be

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1749

sought for in the neighbourhood of Jahzah; see on Jos 13:18. As to Dibon, see on Jer 48:18; for Nebo, see on Jer 48:1. Beth-diblathaim is mentioned only in this passage. It is probably identical with Almon-diblathaim, Num 33:46, and to be sought for somewhere north from Dibon. For Kirjahthaim see Jer 48:1. Beth-gamul is nowhere else mentioned; its site, too, is unknown. Eli Smith, in Robinson's Palestine, iii. App. p. 153, is inclined to recognise it in the ruins of Um-el-Jemel, lying on the southern boundary of the Hauran, about twenty miles south-west from Bozrah; but a consideration of the position shows that they cannot be the same. Beth-meon, or Baal-meon (Num 32:38), or more fully, Beth-baal-meon (Jos 13:17), lay about three miles south from Heshbon, where Burckhardt (p. 365) found some ruins called Mi-ûn (Robinson, iii. App. p. 170, Ma-în); see on Num 32:38. Kerioth, Jer 48:24 and Jer 48:41, and Amo 2:2, is not to be identified with the ruins called Kereyath or Küreiyath, mentioned by Burckhardt (p. 367) and Seetzen (Reisen, ii. 342, iv. 384), as Ritter has assumed; for this Kereyath is more probably Kirjathaim (see on Jer 48:1). Rather, as is pretty fully proved by Dietrich (in Merx' Archiv. i. 320ff.), it is a synonym of Ar, the old capital of Moab, Num 22:36; and the plural form is to be accounted for by supposing that Ar was made up of two or several large portions. We find two great arguments supporting this position: (1.) When Ar, the capital, occurs among the names of the towns of Moab, as in the list of those in Reuben, Jos 13:16-21, and in the prophecy against Moab in Isaiah, Jer 15 and 16, where so many Moabitic towns are named, we find no mention of Kerioth; and on the other hand, where Kerioth is named as an important town in Moab, Amo 2:2; Jer 48:1, there is no mention of Ar. (2.) Kerioth is mentioned as an important place in the country in Amo 2:2, where, from the whole arrangement of the prophecy, it can only be the capital of Moab; in this present chapter also, Jer 48:24, Kerioth and Bozrah are introduced as two very important towns which maintained the strength of Moab; and immediately afterwards it is added, "The horn of Moab is cut off," etc. Further, in Jer 48:41 the capture of Kerioth is put on a level

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1750

with the taking of the fortresses; while it is added, that the courage of the mighty men has failed, just as in Jer 49:22 the capture of Bozrah is coupled with the loss of courage on the part of Edom's heroes. Bozrah is not to be confounded with Bozrah in Edom (Jer 49:13), nor with the later flourishing city of Bostra in Hauran: it is the same with Bezer (בּצר), which, according to Deu 4:43 and Jos 20:8, was situated in the Mishor of the tribe of Reuben, but has not yet been discovered; see on Deu 4:43. For the purpose of completing the enumeration, it is further added, "all the towns of the land of Moab, those which are far off (i.e., those which are situated towards the frontier) and those which are near" (i.e., the towns of the interior, as Kimchi has already explained). Thereby the horn of Moab is cut off, and his arm broken. Horn and arm are figures of power: the horn an emblem of power that boldly asserts itself, and pushes down all that opposes (cf. Psa 75:5, 11); the arm being rather an emblem of dominion.

Verses 26-27

Jer 48:26-27Moab's haughtiness and deplorable fall. - Jer 48:26."Make him drunk - for he hath boasted against Jahveh - so that Moab shall splash down into his vomit, and himself become a laughing-stock. Jer 48:27.Was not Israel a laughing-stock to thee, or was he found among thieves? for whenever thou spakest of him, thou didst shake thine head. Jer 48:28.Leave the cities and dwell in the rock, ye inhabitants of Moab; and be ye like a dove [that] builds its nest in the sides of the mouth of a pit. Jer 48:29.We have heard the very arrogant pride of Moab, his haughtiness, and his arrogance, and his high-mindedness, and his elation of mind. Jer 48:30.I know, saith Jahveh, his wrath, and the untruthfulness of his words; they have done what is untrue. Jer 48:31.Therefore will I howl over Moab, and for all Moab will I cry; they mourn for the people of Kir-heres. Jer 48:32.I will weep for thee [with more] than the weeping of Jazer, O vine of Sibmah, thou whose tendrils have gone over the sea, have reached even to the sea of Jazer; on thy fruit-harvest and thy vintage a spoiler has fallen. Jer 48:33.And joy and gladness are taken from the garden, and from the land of Moab; and I have caused wine to fail from the wine-vats: they shall not tread [with] a shout; the shout shall be no shout. Jer 48:34.From the cry of Heshbon

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1751

as far as Elealeh, as far as Jahaz, they utter their voice; from Zoar as far as Horonaim and the third Eglath; for even the waters of Nimrim shall become desolations. Jer 48:35.And I will destroy from Moab, saith Jahveh, him that offers on a high place and burns incense to his gods."
Through his pride, Moab has incurred the sentence of destruction to his power. In arrogance and rage he has exalted himself over Jahveh and His people Israel; therefore must he now be humbled, Jer 48:26-30. The summons to make Moab drunk is addressed to those whom God has charged with the execution of the sentence; cf. Jer 48:10 and Jer 48:21. These are to present to the people of Moab the cup of the divine wrath, and so to intoxicate them, that they shall fall like a drunk man into his vomit, and become a laughing-stock to others (cf. Jer 13:13; Jer 25:15), because they have boasted against Jahveh by driving the Israelites from their inheritance, and by deriding the people of God; cf. Zep 2:8. ספק, to strike, frequently of striking the hands together; here it signifies to fall into his vomit, i.e., to tumble into it with a splash. No other explanation of the word can find support from the language used. Cf. Isa 19:14 and Isa 25:10. In the last clause of Jer 48:26, the emphasis lies on גּם הוּא: "he also (Moab, like Israel before) shall become a laughing-stock." This statement is enforced by the question put in Jer 48:27, "Was not Israel a laughing-stock to thee?" ואם־אם shows a double question, like ה־אם; and ואם in the first clause may be further strengthened by the interrogative ה before שׂחק, as in Gen 17:17. For other forms of the double question, see Psa 94:9; Job 21:4; Jer 23:26. On Dagesh dirimens in השּׂחק, cf. Ewald, §104, b. There is no sufficient reason for questioning the feminine form נמצאה in the Qeri; Israel is personified as a woman, just as Moab in Jer 48:20, where חתּה is found. On מדּי דב, cf. Jer 31:20, where, however, דּבּר בּ is used in another meaning. התנודד, to shake oneself, is a stronger expression than הניד בּראשׁ, to shake the head (Jer 18:16), a gesture denoting mockery and rejoicing over another's injury; cf. Psa 64:9.

Verse 28

A transition is now made from figurative to literal language, and Moab is summoned to leave the cities and take refuge in inaccessible rocks, because he will not be able to offer resistance to

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1752

the enemy; cf. Jer 48:6 and Jer 48:9. "Like a dove that builds its nest over deep crevices." The reference is to wild pigeons, which occur in large numbers in Palestine, and make their nests in the clefts of high rocks (Sol 2:14) even at the present day, e.g., in the wilderness of Engedi; cf. Robinson's Palestine, ii. 203. בּעברי , lit., "on the other side of the mouth of the deep pit," or of the abyss, i.e., over the yawning hollows. בּעברי is a poetic form for בּעבר, as in Isa 7:20. The humiliation of Moab finds its justification in what is brought out in Jer 48:29., his boundless pride and hatred against Israel.

Verses 29-30

Jer 48:29 and Jer 48:30 only more fully develop the idea contained in Isa 16:6. Those who "heard" are the prophet and the people of God. There is an accumulation of words to describe the pride of Moab. Isaiah's expression also, עברתו לא־כן בּדּיו, is here expanded into two clauses, and Jahveh is named as the subject. Not only have the people of God perceived the pride of Moab, but God also knows his wrath. בּדּיו belongs to לא־כן as a genitive, as in Isaiah לא־כן means "not right," contrary to actual facts, i.e., untrue.^[20]
Jer 48:31-33 are also an imitation of Isa 16:7-10. V. 31 is a reproduction of Isa 16:7. In Jer 48:7, Isaiah sets forth the lamentation of Moab over the devastation of his country and its precious fruits; and not until v. 9 does the prophet, in deep sympathy, mingle his tears with those of the Moabites. Jeremiah, on the other hand, with his natural softness, at once begins, in the first person, his lament over Moab. על־כּן, "therefore," is not immediately connected with Jer 48:29., but with the leading idea presented in Jer 48:26 and Jer 48:28, that Moab will fall like one intoxicated, and that he must flee out of his cities. If we refer it to Jer 48:30, there we must attach it to the thought implicitly contained

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1753

in the emphatic statement, "I (Jahveh) know his wrath," viz., "and I will punish him for it." The I who makes lament is the prophet, as in Isa 16:9 and Isa 15:5. Schnurrer, Hitzig, and Graf, on the contrary, think that it is an indefinite third person who is introduced as representing the Moabites; but there is no analogous case to support this assumption, since the instances in which third persons are introduced are of a different kind. But when Graf further asserts, against referring the I to the prophet, that, according to what precedes, especially what we find in Jer 48:26., such an outburst of sympathy for Moab would involve a contradiction, he makes out the prophet to be a Jew thirsting for revenge, which he was not. Raschi has already well remarked, on the other hand, under Isa 15:5, that "the prophets of Israel differ from heathen prophets like Balaam in this, that they lay to heart the distress which they announce to the nations;" cf. Isa 21:3. The prophet weeps for all Moab, because the judgment is coming not merely on the northern portion (Jer 48:18-25), but on the whole of the country. In Jer 48:31, Jeremiah has properly changed לאשׁישׁי (cakes of dried grapes) into אל־אנשׁי, the people of Kir-heres, because his sympathy was directed, not to dainties, but to the men in Moab; he has also omitted "surely they are smitten," as being too strong for his sympathy. יהגּה, to groan, taken from the cooing of doves, perhaps after Isa 38:15; Isa 59:11. The third person indicates a universal indefinite. Kir-heres, as in Isa 16:11, or Kir-haresheth in Isa 16:7; 2Ki 3:25, was the chief stronghold of Moab, probably the same as Kir-Moab, the modern Kerek, as we may certainly infer from a comparison of Isa 16:7 with Isa 15:1 see on 2Ki 3:25, and Dietrich, S. 324.

Verses 32-33

Jer 48:32-33 מבּכי יעזר, "more than the weeping of Jazer," may signify, "More than Jazer weeps do I weep over thee;" or, "More than over Jazer weeps do I weep over thee;" or, "More than over Jazer do I weep over thee." However, the former interpretation is the more obvious, and is confirmed by the reading in Isa 16:9. According to the Onomasticon, Jazer was fifteen Roman miles north from Heshbon. Seetzen recognises it in the ruins called es Szir at the source of the Nahr Szir; see on Num 21:32. According to Jerome, on Isa 16:8, Sibmah was only five hundred paces from Heshbon; see on Num 32:38. Judging from the verse now

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1754

before us, and from Isa. l.c., the vines of Sibmah must have been famed for the strength and excellence of their clusters. Even now, that region produces excellent grapes in abundance. From Szalt, which lies only ten miles north from Szir, raisins and grapes are carried to Jerusalem, and these of excellent quality (Seetzen, i. S. 399; Burckhardt, p. 350). In what follows, "his tendrils crossed the sea," etc., the extensive cultivation of the grape is set forth under the figure of a vine whose tendrils stretch out on all sides. "They have crossed over the sea" has reference in Isaiah (Isa 16:8) to the Dead Sea (ים, as in Psa 68:23; 2Ch 20:2); not merely, however, in the sense of the shoots reaching close to the Dead Sea, but also over it, for Engedi was famed for its vines (Sol 1:14). Jeremiah also has reproduced the words taken from Isaiah in this sense. From the following clause, "they reached to the sea of Jazer," it does not follow that he has specified "the sea" by "Jazer." What tells rather the other way is the fact that עבר, which means to cross over, cannot possibly be used as equivalent to נגע עד, "to reach to." "They crossed over the sea" shows extension towards the west, while "they reached to the sea of Jazer" indicates extension towards the north. This latter statement also is an imitation of what we find in Isa 16:8; and "Jazer" is merely further specified as "the sea of Jazer." In spite of the most diligent inquiries, Seetzen (i. S. 406) could learn nothing from the people of that region regarding an inland lake; but in the beautiful green vale in the vicinity of Szâr (i.e., Jazer) there were several ponds, which he supposes may possibly be the mare Jazer, since this valley lying among the mountains is somewhat depressed, and in ancient times was probably filled with water. The "sea" (ים) of Solomon's temple further shows that ים does not necessarily denote only a large lake, but might also be applied to a large artificial basin of water. So also, at the present day, the artificial water-basins on the streets of Damascus are called baharat, "seas;" cf. Wetzstein in Delitzsch on Isa 16:8. This cultivation of the vine is at an end; for the destroyer has fallen upon the fruit-harvest and the vintage. Jeremiah, by "the destroyer has fallen," explains the words of Isaiah (Isa 16:9), "shouting has fallen." - In Jer 48:33, Isa 16:10 is reproduced. "Joy and gladness are taken away from the gardens, and from

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1755

the whole land of Moab." כּרמל is not here a proper name, for Mount Carmel does not at all suit the present context; it is an appellative, fruit-land, i.e., the fruitful wine-country near Jazer. Jeremiah adds, "and from the land (i.e., the whole land) of Moab." The pressing of the grapes comes to an end; there is no wine in the vat; no longer is the wine pressed with "Hedad." הידד is an adverbial accusative. This is further specified by the oxymoron: a "Hedad, and yet not a Hedad." This word generally signifies any loud shout, - not merely the shout of the wine-pressers as they tread the grapes (see on Jer 25:30), but also a battle-cry; cf. Jer 51:14. Hence the meaning is, "Hedad is heard, but not a merry shout of the wine-pressers."
Jer 48:34 is based on Isa 15:4-6. "From the cry of Heshbon is heard the echo as far as Elealeh and Jahaz," or "from Heshbon to Elealeh and Jahaz is heard a cry, and from Zoar to Horonaim." Heshbon and Elealeh are only about two miles distant from each other; their ruins are still visible under the names of Hesbân (Husban, see on Jer 48:2) and El Al (see on Num 32:37). They were both built on hills; Elealeh in particular was situated on the summit of a hill whence the whole of the southern Belka may be seen (Burckhardt, p. 365), so that a shout thence emitted could be heard at a great distance, even as far as Jahaz, which is pretty far off to the south-west from Heshbon (see on Jer 48:21). The words "from Zoar to Horonaim" also depend on "they uttered their voice." Both places lay in the south of the land; see on Jer 48:3 and Jer 48:4. The wailing resounds not merely on the north, but also on the south of the Arnon. There is much dispute as to the meaning of עגלת  שׁלישׁיּה, which is here mentioned after Horonaim, but in Isa 15:5 in connection with, or after Zoar. To take the expression as an appellative, juvenca tertii anni (lxx, Vulgate, Targum, Gesenius, etc.), would perhaps be suitable, if it were an apposition to Moab, in which case we might compare with it passages like Jer 46:20; Jer 50:11; but this does not accord with its position after Horonaim and Zoar, for we have no analogy for the comparison of cities or fortresses with a juvenca tertii anni, h. e. indomita jugoque non assueta; and it cannot even be proved that Zoar and Horonaim were fortresses of Moab. Hence we take 'עגלת שׁ as the proper name of a place, "the third Eglath;" this is the view of Rosenmüller,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1756

Drechsler, and Dietrich (in Merx' Archiv. i. S. 342ff.). The main reason for this view, is, that there would be no use for an addition being made, by way of apposition, to a place which is mentioned as the limit of the Moabites' flight, or that reached by their wailing. The parallelism of the clauses argues in favour of its being a proper name; for, on this view of it, three towns are named in both members, the first one, as the starting-point of the cry of wailing, the other two as points up to which it is heard. The preposition עד, which is omitted, may be supplied from the parallel member, as in Isa 15:8. Regarding the position of Eglath Shelishijah, it is evident from the context of both passages that we must look for it on the southern frontier of Moab. It is implied in the epithet "the third" that there were three places (villages), not far from one another, all bearing the same name. Dietrich (S. 344f.) has adduced several analogous cases of towns in the country to the east of the Jordan, - two, and sometimes even three, towns of the same name, which are distinguished from each other by numerals. "The waters of Nimrim also shall become desolations," because the enemy fill up the springs with earth. Nimrim is not the place called נמרה or בּית נמרה mentioned in Num 32:3, Num 32:36; Jos 13:27, whose ruins lie on the way from Szalt to Jericho, in the Wady Shaib, on the east side of the Jordan (see on Num 32:36), for this lies much too far to the north to be the place mentioned here. The context points to a place in the south, in Moab proper. where Burckhardt (p. 355), Seetzen (Reisen, ii. S. 354), and de Saulcy (Voyage, i. 283, ii. 52) have indicated a stream fed by a spring, called Moiet Numêre (i.e., brook Nimrah), in the country at the south end of the Dead Sea, and in that wady a mass of ruins called Numêre (the Nimmery of Seetzen, iii. 18).

Verse 35

Jer 48:35 ends the strophe of which it is a part; here the Lord declares that He will make to cease למואב (for, or from Moab, lit., to Moab), every one who offers on a high place and burns incense to his gods. מעלה cannot be a substantive, else the parallelism would be destroyed. Nor may we, with Hitzig, render "he who raises a high place," i.e., builds it, for העלה is not used in this sense.

Verse 36

Jer 48:36Further lamentation over the fall of Moab. - Jer 48:36. "Therefore my heart sounds like pipes for Moab, and

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1757

my heart sounds like pipes for the men of Kir-heres; therefore the savings which he has made are perished. Jer 48:37. For every head is baldness, and every beard is shorn; on all hands there are cuts, and on loins sackcloth. Jer 48:38. On all the roofs of Moab, and in its streets, it is all mourning; for I have broken Moab like a vessel, in which there is no pleasure, saith Jahveh."
The prophet once more lifts up his lamentation over Moab (Jer 48:36 corresponds to Jer 48:31), and gives reason for it in the picture he draws of the deep affliction of the Moabites. Jer 48:36 is an imitation of Isa 16:11; the thought presented in v. 36b accords with that found in Isa 15:7. Isaiah says, "My bowels sound (groan) like the harp," whose strings give a tremulous sound when struck with the plectrum. Instead of this, Jeremiah puts the sounding of pipes, the instruments used in dirges (Mat 9:23). Moab and Kir-heres are mentioned together, as in Jer 48:31. על־כּן, in the second clause, does not stand for כּי על־כּן, "on this account that" (Kimchi, Hitzig, Graf, etc.), but is co-ordinated with the first על־כּן. The idea is not, "Therefore my heart mourns over Moab, because the savings are perished;" but because the sentence of desolation has been passed on the whole of Moab, therefore the heart of the prophet makes lament, and therefore, too, all the property which Moab has acquired is lost. יתרה, as a collective noun, is joined with the plural verb אבדוּ. On the construction יתרת עשׂה, cf. Gesenius, §123, 3, Rem. 1; Ewald, §332, c. The proof of this is given by the deep sorrow and wailing of the whole Moabite nation, Jer 48:37. On all sides are tokens of the deepest sadness, - heads shorn bald, beards cut off, incisions on the hands, sackcloth round the loins.

Verses 37-38

Jer 48:37 is formed out of pieces taken from Isa 15:2-3. קרחה is a substantive, "baldness," i.e., quite bald. גּרוּעה, decurtata, instead of גּדוּעה (in Isaiah), is weaker, but more suitable for the present connection. גּדדת, i.e., cuts or scratches inflicted on the body, as signs of mourning; cf. Jer 16:6; Jer 41:5. כּלּה , "It is all wailing;" nothing is heard but wailing, for God has broken Moab in pieces like a useless vessel. On the simile employed, cf. Jer 22:28.

Verses 39-44

Jer 48:39-44No escape from destruction. - Jer 48:39. "How it is broken! they howl. How hath Moab turned the back, for shame! And Moab becomes a laughing-stock and a terror

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1758

to all his neighbours. Jer 48:40. For thus saith Jahveh: Behold, he shall fly like the eagle, and spread his wings over Moab. Jer 48:41. Kerioth is taken, and the strongholds are seized, and the heart of the heroes of Moab on that day become like the heart of a travailing woman. Jer 48:42. And Moab is destroyed from being a people, because he hath boasted against Jahveh. Jer 48:43. Fear, and a pit, and a snare, are against thee, O inhabitants of Moab, saith Jahveh. Jer 48:44. He who flees from the fear shall fall into the pit, and he who goes up out of the pit shall be taken in the snare; for I will bring against it, against Moab, the year of their recompense, saith Jahveh."
The subject of חתּה in Jer 48:39 is Moab viewed as a nation. הילילוּ might be imperative, but in this case we would be obliged to take בּושׁ also as an imperative (as Hitzig and Graf do). It is simpler to take both forms as perfects: "they howl...Moab turns the back, is ashamed" (= for shame). On היה לשׂחק, cf. Jer 48:26. מחתּה, object of terror, as in Jer 17:17. "All who are round about him," as in Jer 48:17. "For (Jer 48:40) the enemy rushes down upon Moab like an eagle, and seizes Kerioth and all his strongholds." The subject is left unnamed, as in Jer 46:18, but it is Nebuchadnezzar. The figure of the eagle, darting down in flight on its prey, is founded on Deu 28:49 (on אל- for על, cf. Jer 49:22). Kerioth, the capital, is taken (see on Jer 48:24); so are the other strongholds or fastnesses of the country. The mere fact that קריּות has the article does not justify any one in taking it as an appellative, "the cities;" this appears from a comparison of Amo 2:2 with this verse. No plural of קריה occurs anywhere. Then the fear of death falls on the heroes of Moab like a woman in labour. מצרה, partic. Hiphil from צרר, uterum comprimens, is found only here and in Jer 49:22, where the figure is repeated. Moab is annihilated, so that it is no longer a nation (cf. Jer 48:2), because it has risen up in pride against the God of Israel; cf. Jer 48:26. He who flees from one danger falls into the other. The play on the words פּחד, fear, horror, פּחת, pit, and פּח, spring-trap, as well as the mode in which it is carried out, is taken from Isa 24:17., - a prophecy of the judgment on the world; see a similar idea presented in Amo 5:19, but somewhat differently expressed. The Kethib הניס, perfect Hiphil, "he flees," is less suitable

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1759

than the Qeri הנּס (after Isaiah). The last clause, "for I will bring," etc., is quite in Jeremiah's peculiar style; cf. Jer 4:23; Jer 23:12. אליה belongs to אל־מואב: the noun is anticipated by the pronoun, as frequently occurs; cf. Jer 9:14; Jer 41:3; Jer 43:11.

Verses 45-47

Jer 48:45-47Conclusion. - Jer 48:45. "Under the shadow of Heshbon stand fugitives, powerless; for a fire goes out from Heshbon, and a flame from Sihon, and devours the region of Moab, and the crown of the head of the sons of tumult. Jer 48:46. Woe unto thee, Moab! the people of Chemosh are perished! for thy sons are taken away into captivity, and thy daughters into captivity. Jer 48:47. Yet will I turn the captivity of Moab at the end of the days, saith Jahveh. Thus far is the judgment of Moab."
From Heshbon issued the resolution to annihilate Moab (Jer 48:2); to Heshbon the prophecy finally returns. "In the shadow of Heshbon stand fugitives, powerless' (מכּח, with מן privative), where, no doubt, they were seeking refuge; cf. Isa 30:2-3. The fugitives can only be Moabites. Here it is astonishing that they seek refuge in Heshbon, since the enemy comes from the north, and according to Jer 48:2, it is in Heshbon that the resolution to destroy Moab was formed; and judging from Jer 49:3, that city was then in the hands of the Ammonites. Hence Hitzig and Graf miss the connection. Hitzig thinks that the whole clause was inserted by a glosser, who imagined the town belonged to Moab, perhaps allowing himself to be misled in this by Num 21:27, "Come to Heshbon." Graf, on the other hand, is of opinion that the fugitives are seeking the protection of the Ammonites in Heshbon, but do not find it: hence he would take the כּי which follows in the adversative sense of "however" or "rather;" but this is against the use of the word, and cannot be allowed. The tenor of the words, "Fugitives stand under the shadow of Heshbon," does not require us to assume that people had fled to Heshbon out of the whole of Moab. Let us rather think of fugitives from the environs of Heshbon, who seek refuge in this fortified town, from the enemy advancing from the north, but who find themselves disappointed in their expectation, because from this city there bursts forth the fire of war which destroys Moab. The thought merely serves the purpose

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1760

of attaching to it the utterances which follow regarding Moab; but from Jer 48:43 and Jer 48:44 alone, it is evident that escape will be impossible. In proof of this he mentions the flight to Heshbon, that he may have an opportunity of introducing a portion of the old triumphal songs of the Mosaic age, with which he wished to conclude his prophecy, Jer 48:45 and Jer 48:46. The fugitives stand powerless, i.e., exhausted and unable to flee any further, while Heshbon affords them no refuge. For there bursts forth from it the fire that is to destroy the whole of Moab. The words from "for a fire," etc., on to the end of Jer 48:46, are a free imitation of some strophes out of an ancient song, in which poets of the Mosaic period celebrated the victory of Israel over Sihon the king of the Amorites, who had conquered the greater portion of Moab; but with this here is interwoven a passage from the utterances of Balaam the seer, regarding the fall of Moab, found in Num 24:17, viz., from ותּאכל to בּני שׁאון. These insertions are made for the purpose of showing that, through this judgment which is now coming upon Moab, not only those ancient sayings, but also the prophecy of Balaam, will find their full accomplishment. Just as in the time of Moses, so now also there again proceeds from Heshbon the fire of war which will consume Moab. The words, "for a fire has gone out from Heshbon," are a verbatim repetition of what we find in Num 21:28, with the single exception that אשׁ is here, as in Psa 104:4, construed as masculine, and thus takes יצא instead of יצאה; but this change, of course, does not affect the meaning of the words. The next clause runs, in Numbers, l.c., להבה מקּרית סיחון, but here ולהבה מבּין; this change into מבּין is difficult to account for, so that J. D. Michaelis and Ewald would alter it into מבּית.
There is no need for refuting the assumption of Raschi and Nägelsbach, that Sihon stands for the city of Sihon; or the fancy of Morus and Hitzig, that an old glosser imagined Sihon was a town instead of a king. When we consider that the burning of Heshbon by the Israelites, celebrated in that ancient song, was brought on by Sihon the Amorite king, since the Israelites were not to make war on Moab, and only fought against Sihon, who had made Heshbon his residence, there can be no doubt that Jeremiah purposely changed מקּרית into מבּין סיחון, in order to show that Sihon was

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1761

the originator of the fire which consumed Heshbon. By this latter expression Jeremiah seeks to intimate that, in Nebuchadnezzar and the Chaldean army, there will arise against the Moabites another Sihon, from whose legions will burst forth the flame that is to consume Moab. מבּין, "from between," is to be explained on the ground that Sion is not viewed as a single individual, but as the leader of martial hosts. This fire will "devour the region of Moab, and the crown of the head of the sons of tumult." These words have been taken by Jeremiah from Balaam's utterance regarding Moab, Num 24:17, and embodied in his address after some transformation. What Balaam announces regarding the ruler (Star and Sceptre) that is to arise out of Israel, viz., "he shall smite the region of Moab, and dash in pieces the sons of tumult," Jeremiah has transferred to the fire: accordingly, he has changed וּמחץ into  ותּאכל, and וקרקר  into וקדקד. Several commentators understand פאה as signifying the margin of the beard (Lev 19:27; Lev 21:5); but the mention of the crown of the head in the parallel member does not require this meaning, for פאה does not signify the corner of the beard, except when found in combination with ראשׁ or זקן. The singeing of the margin of the beard seems, in connection with the burning of the crown, too paltry and insignificant. As in the fundamental passage  פּאתי signify the sides of Moab, so here פאה is the side of the body, and קדקד the head. בּני שׁאון, homines tumultuosi, are the Moabites with their imperious disposition; cf. Jer 48:29.

Verse 46

Jer 48:46 is again derived from the ancient poem in Num 21, but the second half of the verse is altered. The bold figure which represents Chemosh the god of the Moabites as delivering his people up to captivity, is continued in the literal statement of the case; Moab's sons and daughters, i.e., its population, are carried away by the enemy into captivity.

Verse 47

This infliction of judgment, however, on the Moabites, is not to prove a complete annihilation of them. At the end of the days, i.e., in the Messianic times (see on Jer 23:20), there is in store for them a turn in their fortunes, or a restoration. For שׁוּב שׁבוּת, see on Jer 29:14. Cf. the similar promise for Egypt, Jer 46:26; Ammon and Elam, Jer 49:6 and Jer 49:39. The last clause, "Thus far," etc.,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1762

is an addition made by the editor, when this oracle was received into the collection of Jeremiah's prophecies; cf. Jer 51:64. משׁפּט means the prophecy regarding Moab with respect to its contents.
As to the fulfilment of the threatened ruin, Josephus (Antt. x. 9. 7) states that Nebuchadnezzar, in the fifth year after the destruction of Jerusalem, made war on the Moabites and subdued them. This statement is not to be questioned, though the date given should be incorrect. We have no other sources of information regarding this people. After the return of the Israelites from Babylon, the Moabites are no longer mentioned as a people, except in Ezr 9:1; Neh 13:1, Neh 13:23, where it is stated that some Israelites had married Moabitish wives; nor is any mention made of this people in the books of the Maccabees, which, however, relate the wars of Judas Maccabeus with the Ammonites and Edomites (1 Macc. 5:3 and 6, cf. 4:61); neither is there any further notice taken of them in Josephus, who only now and then speaks of Moab, i.e., the country and its towns (Antt. xiii. 14. 2, 15. 4; Bell. Jud. iii. 3. 3, iv. 8. 2). This name seems to have been merged, after the exile, in that of the Arabians. But the disappearance of the name of this people does not exclude the probability that descendants continued to exist, who, when Christianity spread in the country to the east of the Jordan, were received into the communion of the Christian church. Concerning Ammon, Edom, Damascus, Kedar, Hazor, Elam
Concerning the Children of Ammon. - The Ammonites were, not merely as regards descent, but also as to their character and their relation to Israel, the twin-people with the Moabites. From them, too, as well as from the Moabites, Sihon the king of the Ammonites had wrenched a portion of their territory, which the Israelites received for a possession after Sihon had been subdued. This territory they sought every opportunity of retaking from the Israelites, whom they as constantly endeavoured to humiliate when they could. Besides their connection with Eglon the Moabite king (Jdg 3:13), they oppressed Israel during the period of the judges for

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1763

eighteen years, not only in Gilead, but also on this side of Jordan, since they fought against Ephraim, Benjamin, and Judah (Jdg 10:7., Jer 11:12 -32). During Samuel's time, their king Nahash besieged Jabesh-gilead, and demanded the surrender of the city under shameful conditions, in consequence of which they were defeated by Saul (1 Sam 2). During the time of David they disgracefully treated his ambassadors, who had come to comfort King Hanun over the death of his father; they then united with the Syrians against Israel, but were defeated by Joab, and, after the taking of their capital, Rabbah, severely chastised (2Sa 10:1 to 2Sa 11:1, and 2Sa 12:26-31). Under the reign of Jehoshaphat, also, in company with the Moabites, they invaded Judah (2 Chron 20); and when, later, the Israelites were heavily oppressed by the Syrians under Hazael, the Ammonites practised cruelties on them in Gilead, for which the prophet Amos (Amo 1:13-15) threatens them with devastation of their country and foreign captivity. After the death of Jeroboam II, who had restored the borders of Israel as far as the Dead Sea (2Ki 14:25), the Ammonites must have made fresh attempts to enlarge their territory during the interregnum that had begun in the kingdom of the ten tribes; for it is mentioned in 2Ch 26:8 that they brought presents to King Uzziah, i.e., paid tribute, and had thus been rendered tributary to him: it is also stated in 2Ch 27:5 that his son Jotham marched against them in order to enforce the payment of the tribute. But when, soon afterwards, Tiglath-pileser the Assyrian carried away the tribes of Israel on the east of the Jordan (2Ki 15:29; 1Ch 5:26), the Ammonites seized possession of the depopulated country of the tribes of Gad and Reuben, while they also seized Heshbon on the border of these two tribal territories. This unjust appropriation of Israelitish territory forms the starting-point of the prophecy now before us.
Ammon has taken possession of the inheritance of Gad, therefore must his cities be destroyed by war, that Israel may again obtain his own property (Jer 49:1, Jer 49:2). Ammon will sorrow deeply, for his god will go with his princes into captivity (Jer 49:2-4). His trust in the wealth of his land will not help him, but his people will be frightened away through terror on every side, yet they will be restored in the future (Jer 49:5, Jer 49:6).

Chap. 49

Verses1-6

Jer 49:1-6"Concerning the children of Ammon, thus saith Jahveh: Hath Israel no sons, or hath he no heir? Why doth their king inherit Gad, and his people dwell in his cities? Jer 49:2. Therefore, behold, days are coming, saith Jahveh, when I will cause to be heard against Rabbah of the children of Ammon a war-cry; and it shall become a heap of ruins, and her daughters shall be burned with fire: and Israel shall heir those who heired him, saith Jahveh. Jer 49:3. Howl, O Heshbon! for Ai is laid waste. Cry! ye daughters of Rabbah, gird yourselves with sackcloth; lament, and run up and down among the enclosures: for their king shall go into captivity, his priests and his princes together. Jer 49:4. Why dost thou glory in the valleys? Thy valley flows away, O thou rebellious daughter, that trusted in her treasures, [saying], Who shall come to me? Jer 49:5. Behold, I will bring a fear upon thee, saith the Lord Jahveh of hosts, from all that is round thee; and ye shall be driven each one before him, and there shall be none to gather together the fugitives. Jer 49:6. But afterwards I will turn the captivity of the children of Ammon, saith Jahveh."
The address begins with a question full of reproach: "Has Israel, then, no sons who could take possession of his land as their inheritance, that the king of the Ammonites has taken possession of Gad (i.e., of the hereditary portion of the tribe of Gad), and dwells in the cities of Gad?" The question presupposes that the Israelites had been carried away by Tiglath-pileser, but at the same time, also, that the country still belongs to the Gadites, for they certainly have sons who shall again receive the inheritance of their fathers. Since Jeremiah, as is clear from Jer 49:3, had Amo 1:13-15 in his mind, he evidently uses מלכּם in a double sense, not merely in Jer 49:3, but even in Jer 49:1 also, with a reference to Amo 1:15, meaning the king and god of the Ammonites. As in Amos, Aquila, Symmachus, Jerome, and the Syriac, so in this passage also, the lxx, Vulgate, and Syriac have understood מלכּם of the god מלכּם; with them agree Ewald, Hitzig, and Graf. But the reasons alleged for the change of מלכּם into מלכּם are quite as insufficient here as in Amo 1:15. Just as, in the last-named passage, מלכּם first of all refers to the king of the Ammonites, so is it here. It is not the god, but the king, of the Ammonites

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1765

that has taken possession of the territory of Gad. It is not till Jer 49:3 that the reference to the god Milcom plainly comes out. Jer 49:2. Therefore shall Rabbah, the capital of the Ammonites, hear the cry of war, and be changed into a heap of ruins. רבּת בּני , "The great (city) of the sons of Ammon," is the full name of the Ammonite capital (cf. Deu 3:11), which is usually called, briefly, רבּה (Amo 1:14; 2Sa 11:1, etc.); it was afterwards called Philadelphia, probably after Ptolemy Philadelphus, in Polybius'  ̔Ραββατάμανα, in Abulfeda Amân, which is the name still given to its ruins on the Nahr Ammân, i.e., the Upper Jabbok; see on Deu 3:11. "A cry of war," as in Jer 4:19; cf. Amo 1:14. "A will of desolation," i.e., a heap of ruins; cf. Jos 8:28; Deu 13:17. "her daughters" are the smaller cities dependent on the capital, - here, all the remaining cities of the Ammonites; cf. Num 21:25; Jos 15:45, etc. "Israel shall heir those who heired him," i.e., receive back the property of those who have appropriated his land.

Verse 3

The cities of the Ammonites, i.e., their inhabitants, shall howl and lament over this calamity. The summons given to Heshbon to howl implies that this city, formerly the residence of Sihon, was then in possession of the Ammonites. There is obscurity in the clause announcing the reason, "for עי (lxx Γαΐ́) is laid waste:" the word seems to be a proper noun, but there is no city of this name known in the Ammonite country, or the land east of the Jordan; while we must not think of Ai (העי, Jos 7:2.), which was situated on the west side of the Jordan. Venema and Ewald are inclined to take the word as an appellative, synonymous with תּל, "ruins" (which is the meaning of עי), and regard it as the subject of Rabbah, the capital, "because it has been laid in ruins." But a comparison of Jer 48:20; Jer 4:20; Zec 11:3, rather favours our taking עי as the subject. Graf and others would therefore change עי into ער, as (they say) the capital of the Ammonites was called by the Israelites. But there are no historical traces of this designation of Rabbah. There remains hardly any other course open than to consider עי as the name of an important Ammonite city. The mere fact that it is mentioned nowhere else cannot form a strong foundation for the objection against this assumption, for we do not find anywhere a list of the Ammonite cities. The

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1766

inhabitants of the other towns are to put on signs of sorrow, and go about mourning "in the enclosures," i.e., in the open country, since the cities, being reduced to ashes, no longer afford shelter. Most expositors understand גּדרות as meaning sheep-folds (Num 32:16, Num 32:24, Num 32:36); but there is no reason for taking this special view of the meaning of the word, according to which גּדרות would stand for  גּדרות צאן. גּדרה and גּדר also mean the wall of a vineyard, or the hedges of the vineyards, and in Num 22:24 specially the enclosure of the vineyards at the cross-roads in the country east of the Jordan. This is the meaning here. We must not, with Nägelsbach, think of city walls on which one could run up and down, for the purpose of taking measures for defence: the words to not signify the walls of a city. The carrying away into exile of Malcam with his priests and princes gives the reason for the sorrow. מלכּם is here not the earthly king, but the god Milcom viewed as the king of the Ammonites, as is clear from the addition כּהניו noitidd, and from the parallel passage in Jer 48:7. The clause is copied from Amo 1:15, but הוּא has been substituted for כּהניו, in order that מלכּם may be understood of Milcom, the chief deity (see on 1Ki 11:5).

Verses 4-5

Thus shall the empty boasting of the Ammonites and their trust in their riches come to nothing. "Why dost thou boast of the valleys?" i.e., of the splendid fruitful valleys and plains which, being well watered, produced large crops of corn and wheat.^[21] זב  is viewed by some as an antithesis to what immediately precedes: "thy valley flows, sc. with the blood of the slain" (Rosenmüller and Gesenius still view it thus); or, "it flows away," i.e., thy valley (viz., its inhabitants) is scattered, dispersed. But it is quite arbitrary to supply "with blood;" and even the other explanation - which Hitzig justifies on the ground that valley or river-bottom stands for what it contains,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1767

i.e., the inhabitants of the valley, and that the population is represented under the figure of a mass of water running, flowing away - is very far-fetched. The words cannot form an antithesis to what precedes (because the description of the confidence shown is still continued, and the antithesis does not follow till Jer 49:5), but merely a further extension of the preceding clause. We may, then, either translate, "thy valley flows, overflows," so that the words shall be subordinated to what precedes; or we may take זב, with Ewald and Graf, as a noun, in which case we must repeat the preposition בּ, "the abundance of thy valley." The singular, "thy valley," means, together with the other valleys of the country, perhaps the valley of Rabbah; for Ammân lies in a broad valley along with banks of the Moiet Ammân, which has its source in a pool two hundred paces from the south-west end of the city (Burckhardt's Syria, p. 355). Regarding the vicinity, Abulfeda writes (Tabulae Syr. ed. Mich. p. 92), circumjecta regio arva sativa sunt ac terra bona et abundans. The direct address, "O rebellious daughter," used of Israel in Jer 31:22, is here transferred to the inhabitants of Rabbah, with reference to the fact that the Ammonites, denying their descent from Lot, behaved like enemies towards Jahveh and His people. In trusting their riches, they are like the Moabites, Jer 48:7. In this confidence they said, "Who will come unto us?" i.e., attack us as enemies. Thereupon the Lord replies, "I will bring on thee fear, terror from all that is round thee," all the nations that dwell about thee (cf. Jer 48:17, Jer 48:39), whose distress or overthrow will put thee in terror. אישׁ = אישׁ לפניו, "every one before him" (cf. Jos 6:5; Amo 4:3), without looking about him, or turning round (cf. Jer 46:5), i.e., in the most precipitate flight, with no one to rally the fugitives. לנּדר is collective.

Verse 6

Yet afterwards, the fortunes of Ammon also shall be changed, as it was with Moab. Jer 48:47.
Regarding the fulfilment of this prophecy (just as in the case of Moab), we have no further information than that of Josephus (Ant. x. 9. 7), that Nebuchadnezzar defeated and subdued the Ammonites in the fifth year after the destruction of Jerusalem. Shortly before, their king Baalis had got Gedaliah the governor put out of the way (Jer 40:14). Even

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1768

after the exile they kept up their hostile spirit against the Israelites and the Jews, inasmuch as they tried to hinder the building of the city walls at Jerusalem (Neh 4:1.), and in the Maccabean age were still making war against the Jews; 1 Macc. 5:6, 30-43. Their name was preserved till the time of Justin Martyr ( ̓Αμμανιτῶν ἐστι νῦν πολὺ πλῆθος, Dial. Tryph. p. 272). But Origen already comprehends their country under the general name Arabia (lib. 1 in Jobum).

Verses 7-22

Concerning Edom. - To the Edomites, whom Israel were to leave undisturbed in their possession, since they were a kindred nations (Deu 2:4), Balaam announces that "Edom shall become a possession," i.e., shall be taken possession of by the ruler rising out of Israel. We have shown, in the explanation given of Num 24:18, that up to the time of the exile this utterance had been fulfilled merely by feeble attacks being made, since the Edomites were only temporarily subdued by the Israelites, then soon made themselves independent again, and made war on Israel. On account of their implacable hostility towards the people of God, Ezekiel (Eze 25:12.), as well as Jeremiah in this prophecy, announces ruin to them. The contents of the prophecy before us are as follow: The far-famed wisdom of Teman will not preserve Edom from the destruction with which Jahveh will visit it. The judgment of desolation that has been decreed shall inevitably come on it (Jer 49:7-13). The nations shall wage war against it, and make it small; because of its proud trust in the strength of its dwelling-place, it shall become the laughing-stock of every passer-by (Jer 49:14-18). As a lion from the reedy places of Jordan suddenly attacks a herd, the Lord will drag the Edomites from their rocky dwelling, so that the earth shall quake with the crash of their fall, and the anguish of death shall seize their heroes (Jer 49:19-22). In this prophecy Jeremiah has relied much on Obadiah, Oba 1:1-9, and reproduced much of his expressions regarding the fall of Edom.^[22]
According to what has been said, his address falls into three strophes. In the first (Jer 49:7-13), the judgment breaking

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1769

over Edom is depicted as one that cannot be averted, and as having been irrevocably decreed by the Lord; in the second (Jer 49:14-18), it is set forth as to its nature and the occasion of its occurrence; and in the third (Jer 49:19-22), as to its completion and consequences.

Verses 7-13

Jer 49:7-13The judgment as inevitable. - Jer 49:7. "Thus saith Jahveh of hosts: Is there no more wisdom in Teman? has wisdom perished from those of understanding? is their wisdom [all] poured out? Jer 49:8. Flee, turn ye! hide yourselves, ye inhabitants of Dedan; for I bring the destruction of Esau upon him, the time [when] I visit him. Jer 49:9. If grape-gatherers come to thee, they will not leave gleanings; if thieves by night, they destroy what suffices them. Jer 49:10. For I have stripped Esau, I have uncovered his secret places, and he cannot cover himself; his seed is destroyed, and his brethren, and his neighbours, and he is not. Jer 49:11. Leave thine orphans, I will keep them alive; and let thy widows trust me. Jer 49:12. For thus saith Jahveh: Behold, they whose judgment was not to drink the cup shall certainly drink it: and art thou he [who] shall be quite unpunished? thou shalt not be unpunished, but shalt certainly drink. Jer 49:13. For by myself have I sworn, saith Jahveh, that Bozrah shall become a desolation, a reproach, a waste, and a curse; and all its cities shall become everlasting wastes."
In order to frighten Edom out of his carnal security, the prophet begins by depicting the horror of the judgment coming down on this people, before which his wise men shall stand not knowing what to advise, and unable to find out any means for averting the evil. Teman, the home of the wise Eliphaz (Job 2:11), is here, as in Amo 1:12, Oba 1:9, the region of that name in Gebalene, the northern district of Idumea; see on Amo 1:12. The question, "Is there no longer wisdom in Teman?" is ironical, and has a negative meaning. The following clauses also are to be taken as questions, not as assent to the question, as Hitzig and Graf infer from the omission of בּנים אם is not the plural of בּן, "son," but the participle of בּוּן fo elpici or בּין,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1770

and equivalent to נבנים; cf. Isa 29:14.

Verse 8

The Dedanites, whose caravans march in peace through Edom (see on Jer 25:23), must flee, and hide themselves in deeply concealed hiding-places, in order to escape the evil befalling Edom. The form הפנוּ, which only occurs besides in Eze 9:2, in the sense of being "turned, directed," is here preferred to the Hiphil (cf. Jer 49:24, Jer 46:21, etc.), in order to indicate the constraint under which they must change their route. העמיקוּ is also an imperative, in spite of the Segol in the first syllable, which is found there, in some forms, instead of a; cf. Ewald, §226, a. העמיקוּ לשׁבת, "make deep to stay," i.e., withdraw yourselves into deep or hidden places, where the enemy does not see and discover you. "For the destruction of Esau," i.e., the destruction determined on Esau, or Edom, "I bring on him;" on this matter, cf. Eze 46:21.

Verses 9-13

Jer 49:9 is a reproduction of Oba 1:5, but in such a way that what Obadiah brings forward as a comparison is directly applied by Jeremiah to the enemy: our prophet represents the enemy as grape-gatherers who leave nothing to glean, and as nocturnal thieves who destroy what is sufficient for them, i.e., destroy till they have enough, drag away and destroy as much as they can. The after-clauses, "they will not leave," etc., "they destroy," etc., are thus not to be taken as questions. The reference to Obadiah does not entitle us to supply הלוא from that passage. The connection here is somewhat different. The following verse is joined by means of כּי, "for;" and the thought, "for I have stripped Esau, I have discovered his secret places," shows that the enemy is to be understood by the grape-gatherers and nocturnal thieves: he will leave nothing to glean - will plunder all the goods and treasures of Edom, even those that have been hidden. On this subject, cf. Oba 1:6. חשׂף, "to strip off leaves, make bare" (Jer 13:26), has been chosen with a regard to נחפּשׂוּ in Obadiah. ונחבּה לא יוּכל, lit., "and he hides himself, he will not be able to do it;" i.e., Esau (Edom) tries to hide himself; he will not be able to do it - he will not remain concealed from the enemy. There are not sufficient grounds for changing the perf. נחבּה =נחבּא  into the inf. abs. נחבּה, as Ewald and Graf do. "His seed is destroyed," i.e., his family, the posterity of Esau, the Edomites,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1771

his brethren," the descendants of nations related to the family, and of others similar who had intermingled with them, as the Amalekites, Gen 36:12, Horites, Gen 36:20., Simeonites, 1Ch 4:42, "and his neighbours," the neighbouring tribes, as Dedan, Jer 49:8, Thema and Buz, Jer 25:23. "And he is not" is added to give intensity, as in Isa 19:7; cf. Jer 31:15. The last idea is made more intensive by Jer 49:11, "Leave your orphans and widows." Edom is addressed, and the imperative expresses what must happen. The men of Edom will be obliged to leave their wives and children, and these will be left behind as widows and orphans, because the men fall in battle. Yet the Lord will care for them, so that they shall not perish. In this comfort there is contained a very bitter truth for the Edomites who hated Jahveh. עזבה is the imperative (Ewald, §228, a), not infinitive (Hitzig); and תּבטחוּ is a rare form of the jussive for תּבטחנה, as in Eze 37:7; cf. Ewald, §191, b. Reasons are given for these threats in Jer 49:12 and Jer 49:13, first in the thought that Edom cannot continue to be the only one unpunished, then in the bringing forward of the solemnly uttered purpose of God. "Those who should not be compelled to drink." Those meant are the Israelites, who, as the people of God, ought to have been free from the penal judgment with which the Lord visits the nations. If, now, these are not left (spared such an infliction), still less can Edom, as a heathen nation, lay claim to exemption. By this Jeremiah does not mean to say that nay injustice befalls the Jews if they are obliged to drink the cup of the wrath of God, but merely that their having been chosen to be the people of God does not give them any right to exemption from the judgments of God on the world, i.e., if they make themselves like the heathen through their sins and vices. The inf. abs. שׁתו for שׁתה intensifies: "ye shall (must) drink." The idea is founded on that pervading Jer 25, and there is use made of the words in Jer 25:29. The כּי in Jer 49:13 is mainly dependent on the clause immediately preceding: "thou shalt certainly drink." On "by myself have I sworn" cf. Jer 22:5. In the threat that Edom shall be laid waste there is an accumulation of words corresponding to the excitement of feeling accompanying an utterance under solemn oath. חרב

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1772

is used instead of the more common חרבּה; cf. Jer 25:18; Jer 44:22, etc. חרבות עולם, as in Jer 25:9. Bozrah was at that time the capital of the Edomites (cf. Jer 49:22); it lay south from the Dead Sea, on the site of the village Buseireh (Little Bozrah), in Jebal, which is still surrounded by a castle and with ruins of considerable extent, and is situated on an eminence; see on Amo 1:12 and Gen 36:33. "And all its cities," i.e., the rest of the cities of Idumea; cf. וּבנותיה, Jer 49:2.

Verses 14-18

Jer 49:14-18The nature and occasion of the judgment decreed. - Jer 49:14. "I have heard tidings from Jahveh, and a messenger has been sent among the nations: Gather yourselves together, and go against her, and arise to the battle! Jer 49:15. For, behold, I have made thee small among the nations, despised among men. Jer 49:16. Thy terribleness hath deceived thee, the pride of thy heart, O thou that dwellest in the hiding-places of the rock, that holdest the height of the hill. Though thou makest thy nest high like the eagle, thence will I bring thee down, saith Jahveh. Jer 49:17. And Edom shall become an astonishment; every passer-by shall be astonished at her, and shall hiss at all her plagues. Jer 49:18. As [it was in] the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, saith Jahveh, no man shall dwell there, nor shall a son of man sojourn there."
This judgment will immediately take place. The nations who are to make Edom small and despised have been already summoned by the Lord to the war. Jeremiah has taken this idea from Oba 1:1, Oba 1:2. The subject in "I have heard" is the prophet, who has heard the information from Jahveh. In Obadiah is found the plural, "we have heard," because the prophet includes himself among the people; this is to show that the news serves as a consolation to Israel, because Edom shall be punished for his crimes committed against Judah. This view was not before the mind of Jeremiah; with him the prevailing representation is, that judgment, from which Edom cannot be excepted, is passed upon all nations. Therefore he has chosen the singular, "I have heard." In the succeeding clause the perf. Pual שׁלּח has been changed into שׁלוּח, as the more usual form. The messenger is to be considered as having been sent by the Lord for the purpose of summoning the nations to war, as he actually does in the second hemistich.

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1773

The message agrees, in the nature of its contents, with Oba 1:1; but Jeremiah has dealt somewhat freely with its form. The statement with regard to the object of the war, Jer 49:15, agrees pretty exactly with Oba 1:2. The account, too, which is given of the cause of the judgment, i.e., the guilt of Edom arising from his trusting in the impregnable character of his habitation, is derived from Oba 1:3, Oba 1:4. Jeremiah has intensified the idea by the additional use of תּפלצתּך, but has also made certain limitations of the expression by omitting some clauses found in Obadiah. The word just named is ἅπ. λεγ., and has been variously explained. The verb פּלץ occurs only in Job 9:6, with the meaning of quaking, trembling; and the noun פּלּצוּת pretty frequently in the sense of fear, shuddering, horror; further, מפלצת is used in 1Ki 15:13; 2Ch 15:16, of an idol, monster, object of horror. Hence Rabbinical writers have been inclined to understand תּפלצת as meaning idolatry; in this they are followed by J. D. Michaelis, Meier, and Nägelsbach. The last-named writer translates, "Thy monster (idol) led thee astray." But even though this meaning were better established from the use of language than it is, yet the mention of idolatry, or even of an idol, is quite unsuitable in this passage. The lxx render ἡ παιγνία σου i.e., risus or jocus tuus, Chald. טפשׁוּתך, "thy folly," - evidently a mere guess from the context. The best ascertained translation is, "Thy terror," i.e., the terror which thou dost inspire, or the fear of thee, "hath misled thee, the pride of thine heart," so that "the pride," etc., forms an apposition to "thy terror." The combination of the fem. תּפלצתּך with the verb השּׁיא in the masc. is not decisive against this. Following the example of Schleussner (O arrogantiam tuam), Hitzig and Graf would take the word as an exclamation, "Terror to thee! horror on thee!" and thy point for support to הפכּכם, Isa 29:16. But an exclamation is out of place here, and incompatible with the derivation of the following words from Obadiah. Since Jeremiah appropriates from Obadiah the thought, "thy pride hath misled thee," תּפלצתּך may possibly be meant as a mere intensification of זדוי לבּך. The pride of Edom increased because the other nations were afraid to make war on him in his rocky dwelling, so difficult of access. On שׂכני בּחגוי הסּלע,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1774

see on Oba 1:3. The succeeding apposition-clause מרום שׁבתּו, found in Obadiah, is modified by Jeremiah into תּפשׂי מרום גּבעה otni , "thou that seizest, or holdest (as in Jer 40:10), the height of the hill." In the expression חגוי there is perhaps implied an allusion to the rock-city סלע, or Petra, in the Wady Musa (see on 2Ki 14:7), and in מרום גּבעה ni dn another allusion to Bozrah, which lay on a hill; see on Jer 49:13. On Jer 49:16, cf. Oba 1:4. Jeremiah has omitted the hyperbolic addition, "among the stars." In Jer 49:17 and Jer 49:18 the devastation of Edom is further portrayed. On Jer 49:17, cf. Jer 25:11, Jer 25:38; with 17b agrees Jer 19:8, almost word for word. The comparison with Sodom, etc., is a reminiscence from Deu 29:22, and is repeated in the prophecy concerning Babylon, 50:40; cf. Isa 13:19; Amo 4:11. "Her neighbours" are Admah and Zeboim, Deu 29:22; Hos 11:8. The comparison with Sodom is not so to be understood as if it indicated that Edom shall be destroyed in the same manner as Sodom; it is merely stated that the land of Edom shall become a desert waste, like the region of the Dead Sea, uninhabited, and with no human beings in it; cf. Jer 49:33 and Jer 50:40.

Verses 19-22

Jer 49:19-22"The execution of the judgment, and fall of Edom. - Jer 49:19. "Behold, he shall come up like a lion from the glory of Jordan, to the dwelling or rock: but in a moment will I drive him away from her, and will appoint over her him who is chosen; for who is like me? and who will summon me [before the judge]? and what shepherd shall stand before me? Jer 49:20. Therefore hear the counsel of Jahveh which He hath counselled against Edom, and His purposes which He has purposed against the inhabitants of Teman: Surely they shall drag them about, the little ones of the flock; surely he shall lay waste their dwelling over them. Jer 49:21. At the noise of their fall the earth trembles; a cry - its noise is heard in the Red Sea. Jer 49:22. Behold, he shall come like the eagle and dart after [his prey], and spread his wings over Bozrah; and the heart of the mighty men of Edom in that day shall become like the heart of a woman travailing."
As a lion coming up out of the thicket of reeds at the Jordan (נּאון היּרדּן, see on Jer 12:5) suddenly attacks a flock, so shall he who executes the judgment attack the Edomites in

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1775

their strong habitations, and at once put them to flight. The foe or general who executes the judgment is here no further pointed out, as in Jer 46:18; Jer 48:20; but he is merely set forth as a lion, and in Jer 49:22 as an eagle that in its flight darts down on its prey. נוה איתן, pasture or dwelling of permanence; as איתן is used in Num 24:21 of the rocky range of Sinai, so is it used here of the rocky range of Seir (חגוי הסּלע, Jer 49:16). The translation "evergreen pasture" (Graf, Nägelsbach) cannot be defended; for neither איתן, "continual, enduring," nor נוה, "pasture-ground, dwelling," includes the notion of green grass. Quite baseless is the assumption of Hitzig, that the former word means the "shepherd" as remaining with the flock. ארגּיעה, "I shall wink," stands for the adverb, "immediately, at once." מעליה  אריצנּוּ, "I will make him (Edom) run," i.e., drive him, "from it," his habitation (which is construed as fem. ad sensum). Jahveh sends the lion; Jahveh is not compared with the lion (Hitzig). In מי בּחוּר the former word is not the interrogative pronoun, but the indefinite quicunque, as in Exo 24:14; cf. Ewald, 332, b. And the latter word is not "the valiant shepherd" (Hitzig), but signifies "chosen." אליה is used instead of עליה; and פּקד על means to "set over" something, as the chief, superior. The idea is, that God will frighten away the Edomites out of their land by a lion, and appoint him as the shepherd whom He chooses for that purpose. None can prevent this, for there is none like Jahveh in strength or power, and none can call Him to account for His doing. יעידנּוּ (from יעד), in Hiphil, to "summon before the court of justice," i.e., to call on one to make a defence; cf. Job 9:19. Nor can any shepherd stand before Jahveh, i.e., defend his flock. These words are directed against the rulers of Edom, who foolishly imagined they were secure, and could not be touched in their rock-fortresses. The words, moreover, contain general truths, so that we cannot apply בּחוּר to historical persons, such as Nebuchadnezzar or Alexander the Great.

Verse 20

This truth the Edomites are to lay to heart, and to hear, i.e., consider the purpose which the Lord has formed regarding Edom. Teman is not synonymous with Edom, but the inhabitants of Teman are specially named together with Edom in the parallel member, because they

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1776

were particularly famous for their wisdom (Jer 49:7), and in their pride over this wisdom, held the counsels of God in very small esteem. The counsel of God, the thoughts which He has conceived regarding Edom, follow in the clauses which are introduced with solemn assurance. יסחבוּם  is rendered by the Vulgate, si non dejecerint eos parvuli gregis, which Luther follows in his translation, "if the shepherd-boys will not drag them away." And C. B. Michaelis and Hävernick (on Ezekiel, p. 415) still view the words as meaning that "the least of the flock" will drag away Edom; i.e., the covenant people, weak and miserable though they are, will be victorious over Edom: in support of this rendering they point to Eze 25:14. But though Ezekiel clearly declares that the Lord will satisfy His revenge on Edom by means of His people Israel, yet it does not follow from this that Ezekiel had this passage of Jeremiah in his mind, and sought so to apply it. In spite of the clearness with which the thought is expressed by Obadiah and Ezekiel, that Edom will at last become the prey of the people of God, we would expect to find it in Jeremiah only as a simple inference from his words; for Jeremiah does not, like Obadiah and Ezekiel, mention the enmity of Edom to Israel as the cause of his guilt, but only the pride of his heart. Against taking "the little ones of the flock" as the subject of the clause, we find these considerations: (1) סחב, "to pull, drag away," does not well apply to sheep, but rather points to dogs (Jer 15:3) or lions, which drag away their prey. (2) The context is far from leading us to understand, by the little ones of the sheep, Israel or the people of God, either here or where the words are repeated, 50:45; while Zec 2:7 and Zec 13:7 are passages which cannot be held as regulating this verse. In Jer 49:19 the rulers of Edom are viewed as shepherds: in accordance with this figure, the Edomites are in Jer 49:20 called sheep, and weak, helpless ones too. The subject of יסחבוּם is indefinite: "the enemy will advance like a lion out of the jungle of the Jordan;" the suffix precedes the noun, as in Jer 48:44, etc. The fate of Edom will be so terrible, that their pasture-ground, their habitation will be astonished at it. The Hiphil ישּׁים is formed, like נשּׁים in Num 21:20, from שׁמם; not, however, with the sense of "laying waste," which the construction with על of a person

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1777

does not suit, but with the meaning of "making astonished," as in Eze 32:10, and only here with the directly causative sense of manifesting, showing astonishment or amazement.

Verses 21-22

The fall of Edom will be so fearful, that the earth will tremble, and the cry of anguish from the perishing people will be heard on the Red Sea. נפלם is the inf. Kal with suffix. The threatening concludes, in Jer 49:22, with the same though through which destruction is threatened to the Moabites, Jer 48:40. The comparison of the enemy to an eagle is continued in the expression, "he shall come up;" the coming up, however, does not mean the rising of the eagle into the air, but refers to the enemy: to march as an enemy against Edom.
With reference to the fulfilment of this prophecy, we have already pointed out, on Num 24:18, and at the close of the exposition in Obadiah, that the threatened devastation of the land of Edom was brought about by the Chaldeans, as is clear from Mal 1:3; but the annihilation of the people was commenced by the Maccabeans, and completed by the Romans, about the time of the Jewish war.

Verses 23-27

Concerning Damascus. - Aram, on this side of the Euphrates, or Syria, was divided, in the times of Saul and David, into the kingdoms of Damascus, Zobah, and Hamath, of which the second, extending between Damascus and Hamath (see on 2Sa 8:3), or situated north-eastward from Damascus, between the Orontes and the Euphrates, was the most powerful; its kings were defeated by Saul (1Sa 14:47), and afterwards conquered and made tributary to the kingdom of Israel by David, who did the same to the Syrians of Damascus that had come to the assistance of Hadadezer king of Zobah (2 Sam 8 and 10). After the death of David and during the time of Solomon, a freebooter named Rezon, who had broken away from Hadadezer during the war, established himself in Damascus (see on 1Ki 11:23-25), and became the founder of a dynasty which afterwards made vassals of all the smaller kings of Syria, whose number is given 1Ki 20:1. This dynasty also, under the powerful rulers Benhadad I and II and Hazael, long pressed hard on the kingdom of Israel, and conquered a great part of the Israelite territory (1Ki 15:18., Jer 20:1., Jer 22:3.; 2Ki 5:1., Jer 6:8., 8:28f., 10:32f., 12:18ff., Jer 13:3.). At

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1778

last, King Joash, after the death of Hazael, succeeded in retaking the conquered cities from his son, Benhadad III (2Ki 13:19.); and Jeroboam II was able to restore the ancient frontiers of Israel as far as Hamath (2Ki 14:25). Some decades alter, Rezin king of Damascus, in alliance with Pekah of Israel, undertook a war of conquest against Judah during the time of Ahaz, who therefore called to his aid the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser. This monarch conquered Damascus, and put an end to the Syrian kingdom, by carrying away the people to Kir (2Ki 15:37; 2Ki 16:5-9). This kingdom of Syria is called "Damascus" in the prophets, after its capital. We find threats of destruction and ruin pronounced against it even by such early prophets as Amos (Amo 1:3-5), for its cruelty committed against Israel, and Isaiah (Isa 17:1.), because of its having combined with Israel to destroy Judah. According to the use of language just referred to, "Damascus," mentioned in the heading of this prophecy, is not the city, but the kingdom of Syria, which has been named after its capital, and to which, besides Damascus, belonged the powerful cities of Hamath and Arpad, wxich formerly had kings of their own (Isa 37:13). Jeremiah does not mention any special offence. In the judgment to come on all nations, Aram-Damascus cannot remain exempt.

Verse 23

Jer 49:23"Hamath is ashamed, and Arpad, for they have heard evil tidings: they despair; there is trouble on the sea; no one can rest. Jer 49:24. Damascus has become discouraged, she has turned to flee: terror has seized her; distress and pains have laid hold on her, like a woman in childbirth. Jer 49:25. How is the city of praise not left, the city of my delight? Jer 49:26. Therefore shall her young men fall in her streets, and all the man of war shall be silent in that day, saith Jahveh of hosts. Jer 49:27. And I will kindle a fire in the wall of Damascus, and it shall devour the palaces of Benhadad."
The largest cities of Aram are seized with consternation and discouragement. Damascus would flee, but its men of war fall by the sword of the enemy, and the city is in flames. The description of the terror which overpowers the inhabitants of Aram begins with Hamath (Epiphaneia of the Greeks, now

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1779

called Hamah), which lies north from Hums (Emesa), on the Orontes (el 'Asi); see on Gen 10:17 and Num 34:8. Arpad is always mentioned in connection with Hamath (Isa 10:9; Isa 36:19; Isa 37:13; 2Ki 18:34 and 2Ki 19:13): in the list of Assyrian synonyms published by Oppert and Schrader, it is sounded Arpadda; and judging by the name, it still remains in the large village of Arfâd, mentioned by Marasç., about fifteen miles north from Haleb (Aleppo); see on 2Ki 18:34. The bad news which Hamath and Arpad have heard is about the approach of a hostile army. "She is ashamed," i.e., disappointed in her hope and trust (cf. Jer 17:13), with the accessory idea of being confounded. נמוג, to be fainthearted from fear and anxiety; cf. Jos 2:9, Jos 2:24; Exo 15:15, etc. There is a difficulty with the expression בּים, from the mention of the sea. Ewald has therefore invented a new word, בּי, which is stated to signify mind, heart; and he translates, "their heart is in trouble." Graf very rightly remarks, against this, that there was no occasion whatever for the employment of a word which occurs nowhere else. The simplest explanation is that of J. D. Michaelis, Rosenmüller, and Maurer: "on the sea," i.e., onwards to the sea, "anxiety prevails." The objection of Graf, that on this view there is no nominative to יוּכל, cannot make this explanation doubtful, because the subject (Ger. man, Fr. on, Eng. people, they) is easily obtained from the context. The words השׁקט לא יוּכל form a reminiscence from Isa 57:20, where they are used of the sea when stirred up, to which the wicked are compared. But it does not follow from this that the words are to be understood in this passage also of the sea, and to be translated accordingly: "in the sea there is no rest," i.e., the sea itself is in ceaseless motion (Hitzig); or with a change of בּים into כּים, "there is a tumult like the sea, which cannot keep quiet" (Graf). As little warrant is there for concluding, from passages like Jer 17:12., where the surging of the Assyrian power is compared to the roaring of the waves of the sea, that the unrest of the inhabitants of Syria, who are in a state of anxious solicitude, is here compared to the restless surging and roaring of the sea (Umbreit). For such a purpose, דּאגה, "concern, solicitude," is much too weak, or rather inappropriate.

Verses 24-26

Jer 49:24-26 רפתה דמּשׁק, "Damascus has become

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1780

slack," i.e., discouraged; she turns to flee, and cannot escape, being seized with trembling and anxiety. החזיקה is not the third pers. fem., prehendit terrorem, but stands for החזיקהּ, with Mappik omitted, because the tone is retracted in consequence of the Athnach; cf. Jer 6:24; Jer 8:21, etc. "Terror has seized Damascus." In the last clause וחבלים is subsumed along with צרה; hence the verb is put in the singular. - Jer 49:25. The question, "How is not," etc., has been differently explained. Eichhorn, Gesenius, Ewald, and Umbreit take the words according to the German usage, in the sense, "How is the city forsaken?" or laid waste. But this Germanism is foreign to the Hebrew; and it is not obviated by C. B. Michaelis taking "how" in the sense of quam inopinato et quam horribiliter non deserta est, so that the words would mean nullus est modus desertionis aut gradus quem Damascus non sit experta, because איך לא does not express the kind and manner, or the degree of an action. In the only other passage where איך לא occurs (2Sa 1:14) the negative has its full meaning. Others (Calvin, Schnurrer, J. D. Michaelis, Rosenmüller, Maurer) take עזב in the sense of leaving free, untouched: "How has she not been left untouched?" i.e., been spared. But this meaning of the verb is nowhere found. There is no other course left than, with Nägelsbach, to take the verb as referring to the desertion of the city through the flight of the inhabitants, as in Jer 4:29, etc., and to take the words thus: "How is (i.e., how has it happened that) the famous city (is) not forsaken?" According to this view, it is not the desolation of the city that is bewailed, but the fact that the inhabitants have not saved their lives by flight. The way is prepared for this thought by Jer 49:24, where it is said that the inhabitants of Damascus wish to flee, but are seized with convulsive terror; in Jer 49:25 also there is a more specific reason given for it, where it is stated that the youths (the young warriors) and all the men of war shall fall in the streets of the city, and be slain by foes. The suffix in "my delight" refers to the prophet, and expresses his sympathy for the fall of the glorious city (see on Jer 48:31); because not only does its population perish, but the city itself also (Jer 49:27) is to be burned to ashes.

Verse 27

Jer 49:27 has been imitated from Amo 1:4 and Jer 49:14 conjointly. בּחמת, not "on," but "in," i.e., "within the wall.

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1781

The palaces of Benhadad" are the palaces of the Syrian kings generally, because three kings of Damascus bore this name.
The fulfilment of this threat cannot be proved historically, from want of information. Since Pharaoh-Necho had conquered Syria as far as the Euphrates, it is very possible that, after the defeat of the Egyptians at Carchemish, in the conquest of Syria by Nebuchadnezzar, Damascus was harshly treated. The prophecy is, however, so general in its statement, that we need not confine its fulfilment to the conquest by Nebuchadnezzar.

Verses 28-33

Jer 49:28-33 "Concerning Kedar and the Kingdoms of Hazor, which Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon smote." (The Kethib נבוּכדראצּור is perhaps merely an error in transcription occasioned by the occurrence of the preceding חצור). Kedar, the Kedarenes, a Bedouin nation descended from Ishmael, dwelling in tents throughout the region between Arabia Petraea and Babylonia (see on Gen 25:13 and Eze 27:21), is here, no doubt, a general name for all the nomadic tribes and shepherd nations of Arabia. Hazor elsewhere occurs only as the name of various cities in Palestine (Jos 11:1; Jos 15:23, Jos 15:25; Jos 19:23; Nah. 11:33), of which we need not think here, since it is Arabians who are spoken of. No locality or region of this name in Arabia is known. Jeremiah appears to have formed the name for the purpose of designating those Arabians who dwelt in חצרים, "courts" or "villages," and who thus differed from the Bedouins proper, or nomads and dwellers in tents; cf. Isa 42:11 with Gen 25:16. The settled Arabians are to this day called Hadarijeh, in contrast with Wabarijeh, who dwell in tents. "Hadar, חצר, is the settled dwelling-place, in contrast with bedû, the steppe, where the tents are pitched, sometimes here, sometimes there, and only for a time" (Delitzsch on Isa 42:11). "The kingdoms of Hazor" are the regions of the settled tribes, ruled by their own princes or sheiks; cf. Jer 25:24.^[23]
In the prophecy, the general designation, "children of the east," i.e., Orientals,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1782

alternates with Kedar: the former is the most common name given to the tribes living to the east of Palestine, in the wilderness: cf. Jdg 6:3; Job 1:3; Eze 25:4. Instead of this name, Josephus uses the designation "Arabians" (Ant. Eze 25:6. 1); later, "Nabateans" or "Kedarenes" became common. Here also (Jer 49:32) is used the special designation קצוּצי פאה cut (at) the corner (of the hair), which points to the custom, usual among several of these Bedouin tribes, of cropping the hair of the head and beard; see on Jer 9:25 and Jer 25:23.

Verse 28

Jer 49:28"Thus saith Jahveh, Arise, go up to Kedar, and destroy the children of the east. Jer 49:29. Their tents and their flocks shall they take: their curtains, and all their vessels, and their camels shall they carry away for themselves; and they shall cry over them, Fear is on every side. Jer 49:30. Flee! wander far, dwell deep, ye inhabitants of Hazor, saith Jahveh; for Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon hath taken counsel against you, and hath devised a plan against them. Jer 49:31. Arise! go up against a nation at ease, dwelling carelessly, saith Jahveh; it has no gates nor bars - they dwell alone. Jer 49:32. And their camels shall be a prey, and the multitude of their herds a spoil; and I will scatter them to every wind who have cut the corner [of their beards], and from all sides will I bring their destruction, saith Jahveh. Jer 49:33. And Hazor shall be an habitation of jackals, a desolation for ever. No man shall dwell there, nor shall a son of man sojourn in it."
This prophecy consists of two brief strophes, which begin with a summons to the army of the enemy to wage war on the Arabians (Jer 49:28 and Jer 49:31), and then announce the execution of this order; the arrangement, moreover, is such that there is attached to the first strophe a summons to the Arabians to save themselves by flight (Jer 49:30), while the other concludes with the threat that their territory shall be destroyed (Jer 49:33).

Verses 28-30

Jer 49:28-30 עלה is used with אל instead of על, to signify hostile advance against a nation or city. שׁדדוּ with Qametz-Hatuph (without Metheg) is imperative; cf. Ewald, §227, i, with 251, c. The verbs יקּחוּ and ישׂאוּ in Jer 49:29 are not jussives

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1783

(Ewald, Umbreit, etc.), but imperfects, describing what takes place in consequence of the order given. Tents and flocks of sheep and goats, curtains and vessels, together with camels, form the property and wealth of the nomads. נשׂא, to take away, carry off; להם, sibi. They call out over them, as if it were a watch-cry, "Horror around:" on this expression, see Jer 6:25. This justifies the call addressed to them, "Flee," etc. To נסוּ is added נדוּ for the purpose of intensifying, and this again is further strengthened by appending מאד: "Use every effort to flee." העמיקוּ as in Jer 49:8. A reason is given for the summons, in the statement that Nebuchadnezzar, as the instrument of Jahveh, has formed a plan against them; cf. Jer 49:20 and Jer 18:11. Instead of עליהם, many MSS and the ancient versions have עליכם, in conformity with the first member. In all probability, the original reading is "against them," inasmuch as "the discourse, as in other instances, makes a transition, in the last portion, from direct address to a calmer style of speaking" (Ewald).

Verses 31-32

Jer 49:31 does not declare the plan of the king of Babylon; but the words, "Arise, go ye up," etc., are once more the summons of the Lord, as is shown by the expression "saith Jahveh." The enemy is to march against a peaceful nation, dwelling securely, that has neither doors nor bars, i.e., does not live in cities surrounded by walls with gates and bars (cf. 1Sa 23:7; Deu 3:5), whose territory, therefore, is easily conquered. They dwell alone, apart from others, without connection and intercourse with other nations, from which they could obtain help and support. שׁליו, like זעיר, Job 36:2; Dan 7:8, is a Chaldaizing form; elsewhere it is written שׁליו, Job 21:23, or שׁלו, Job 16:12. As to living securely, cf. Jdg 18:7; Eze 38:11; on living alone, 15:17. This last is elsewhere said only of Israel, Num 23:9; Deu 33:28. Their possessions will become the spoil of the enemy; God will scatter them to every wind (cf. Eze 5:12; Eze 12:14), and bring destruction on them from every side (on עבריו, cf. 1Ki 5:4).

Verse 33

The dwelling-places of the settled tribes (Hazor) shall become the habitation of jackals (cf. Jer 9:10), an uninhabited desolation for ever. Jer 49:33 is in part a repetition of Jer 49:18.
With regard to the fulfilment of this prophecy, it follows

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1784

from the latter part of the title that Nebuchadnezzar had smitten the Arabian tribes, i.e., defeated them, and subjected them to his sway. But we have no historical information as to the time when this took place. M. von Niebuhr (Gesch. Assyr. u. Bab. S. 209) and Duncker (Gesch. d. Alterth. i. S. 427) suppose that Nebuchadnezzar, after he had returned home to Babylon from Hither Asia, having heard of the death of his father, after his victory at Carchemish, and after he had ascended the throne, "as it seems," first thought of extending his authority over the Arabians on the lower portion of the Euphrates, in North Arabia, and in the Syrian desert. This supposition may possibly be true, but cannot be raised to historic probability; moreover, it is connected, by the above-mentioned historians, with theories regarding the campaigns against Hither Asia which rest upon statements of Josephus that are very uncertain, and some of which can be proved to be incorrect. Such is the statement in Antt. x. 6. 1, that Nebuchadnezzar, after his victory at Carchemish, in pursuing the Egyptians to the borders of their country, did not touch Judea. The only notice we have, apart from Scripture, of the conquest of Arabia by Nebuchadnezzar, is that furnished by Josephus (contra Ap. i. 19) from Berosus: κρατῆσαι δέ φησί τὸν Βαβυλώνιον (i.e., Nebuchadnezzar) Αἰγύπτου Συρίας Φοινίκης  ̓Αραβίας. But this notice is stated in such indefinite and general terms, that nothing more specific can be inferred from it regarding the time and circumstances of the conquest of Arabians.

Verses 34-39

Concerning Elam. - By the title (on the form of which, cf. Jer 46:1; Jer 47:1, and Jer 14:1), the utterance regarding Elam is placed "in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah;" hence it was published later than the prophecies in Jer 48 and in 49:1-33, and not long before the prophecy regarding Babylon in Jer 50. Elam, a Shemitic people in Elymais, the Persian province of Susiana (the modern Husistân), which, except in Gen 14:1, only appears in history when it had no longer a Shemitic but an Aryan language (see on Gen 10:22 and Dan 8:2), is mentioned in Isa 22:6 as serving in the Assyrian army, and in Isa 21:6 as being, together with Madai (the Medes), the executors of judgment

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1785

against Babylon. That Elam still belonged, in the time of Esarhaddon, to the kingdom of Assyria, follows from Ezr 4:9, where Elamites are mentioned among the colonists whom this Assyrian king transplanted into the depopulated kingdom of the ten tribes. But whether Elam, after the revolt of Media, also made itself independent of Assyria, or remained subject to this kingdom till it fell, we have no historical data to determine. The same must be said regarding the question whether, after the fall of Nineveh and the destruction of the Assyrian kingdom by the united armies of Nabopolassar from Babylon and Cyaxares from Media, Elam was incorporated with the Median or the Babylonian kingdom; for nothing more specific has been transmitted to us regarding the division of the conquered kingdom among the two victors. Judging from its geographical situation, we must probably come to the conclusion that Elam fell to the lot of the Medes. Seeing that there is an utter want, in other respects, of facts regarding the earlier history of Elam, neither can a historical occasion be made out for this prophecy. The supposition of Ewald, "that the wild and warlike Elamites (Isa 22:6) had shortly before taken part with the Chaldeans as their allies in the deposition of Jehoiachin and the first great exile of the people, and had therein shown themselves particularly cruel," has no support of any kind, either in the contents of the prophecy or in the time when it was composed. The prophecy itself contains not the slightest indication of any hostility on the part of the Elamites towards Judah; nor is anything proved regarding this by the fact that the chastisement is not said to proceed from Nebuchadnezzar, but directly from Jahveh, since, in the oracles concerning Philistia, Edom, and Damascus also, Nebuchadnezzar is not mentioned, but Jahveh is named as the one who destroys these peoples and burns up their cities; cf. Jer 47:4; Jer 49:10, Jer 49:13., 27. Add to this, that the assumption of Elamites being in Nebuchadnezzar's army is devoid of historic probability, since Elam, as has already been stated, hardly belonged to the Chaldean kingdom.^[24]

Verse 35

Jer 49:35"Thus saith Jahveh of hosts: Behold, I will break the bow of Elam, the chief part of their strength. Jer 49:36. And I will bring upon Elam four winds from the four ends of the heaven, and I will scatter them towards all these winds; and there shall be no nation where the scattered ones of Elam shall not come. Jer 49:37. And I will make Elam terrified before their enemies, and before those who seek their life; and I will bring on them evil, the heat of my wrath, saith Jahveh; and I will send after them the sword, until I consume them. Jer 49:38. And I will place my throne in Elam, and will destroy thence king and princes, saith Jahveh. Jer 49:39. But it shall be in the end of the days, that I will turn the captivity of Elam, saith Jahveh."
Elam's martial power is to be destroyed, and its population scattered to the four winds among all nations (Jer 49:25.). The Lord will make them terrified before their enemies, and let them be pursued by the sword till they are swept away (Jer 49:37). In the country itself He will hold a tribunal, and destroy king and priests out of it (Jer 49:38). In Jer 49:35, the bow, as the chief weapon of the Elamites (cf. Isa 22:6), is mentioned, by synecdoche, instead of all offensive and defensive weapons, for all the means of resistance and attack employed by this warlike nation. This, indeed, is shown by the apposition, "the first-fruits (i.e., the chief part) of their strength" or valour. To break the bow in pieces is thus equivalent to rendering defenceless. The plural suffix in גּבוּרתם points to Elam as a nation - the Elamites. Hitzig, Graf, and older expositors make an assumption which is both unnecessary and incapable

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1787

of proof, that קשׁת stands for גבּורים, and means "the valiant, brave people of war," as in Isa 21:17 and 1Sa 2:4; but neither in these passages can the alleged meaning be fully made out.

Verses 36-39

Through the working of God's power, the Elamites shall be dispersed to all the four winds, i.e., to all parts of the earth. This exercise of power is represented under the figure of the four winds. The wind is the most appropriate among all earthly things for symbolizing the Spirit of God, or the energy of the divine operation; cf. Zec 6:5; Dan 7:2. The Kethib עולם in Jer 49:36 has evidently been written by mistake for עילם. The meaning of the figure is this: Elam is to be attacked on all sides by enemies, and be scattered in every direction. This is evident from Jer 49:37, where the figurative is changed for the literal, and the thought further extended. החתּתּי, Hiphil from חתת, be broken to pieces, in Hiphil to dispirit through fear and terror; cf. Jer 1:17. On the form of the text, which is shortened from החתּותי through the shifting of the tone to the last syllable, cf. Ewald, §234, e. רעה, "evil, misfortune," is marked by the apposition, "the heat of mine anger," as the emanation of God's judgment of wrath. On 37b, cf. Jer 9:15. The Lord will sit in judgment on king and princes, and punish them with death. The throne is set for the Judge to sit in judgment; see Jer 43:10. Yet (Jer 49:39), in the Messianic future, blessing shall come on Elam; cf. Jer 49:6; Jer 48:7.
If we compare this prophecy with the remaining prophecies of Jeremiah regarding the heathen nations, we shall find that it contains no reference whatever to any execution by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon of the judgment with which the Elamites are threatened; but it announces the fall of Elam and the dispersion of its inhabitants by enemies in a way so general, that, as Hävernick (on Daniel, p. 549) has remarked, it is an arbitrary addition for any one to make, if he thinks definitely of the Chaldeans as the enemies of Elam, because, correctly viewed, the contents rather declare against a conquest by Nebuchadnezzar. "Jeremiah," says Hävernick, "announces the utter extinction of the state as such, a general dispersion and annihilation of the people, a tribunal of punishment which the Lord Himself will hold over them, - features which

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1788

are far too strongly marked, and far too grand, to let us think that Elam is merely to be rendered tributary and incorporated into a new state. If we connect with this the deliverance of Elam mentioned at the close of Jer 49:39, viz., his conversion, then we will not hesitate to take the meaning of the oracle, in a more general way, as referring to the gradual fall of this heathen nation, for which, however, a future deliverance is in store, as is fully shown by the issue." This view is at least much more correct than the current tone, still maintained by Ewald, Hitzig, Graf, etc., according to which the prophecy refers to a conquest of Elam by Nebuchadnezzar. M. von Niebuhr (Gesch. Assyr. und Bab. S. 210) attempts to show its probability from a notice in Strabo (xi. 524), and (on S. 212) from the intimation given in the book of Judith, Jer 1, of a war between Nebuchadnezzar and Media, which was successfully concluded in the twelfth year of his reign. But the statement in Strabo, that the Kossaites, a nation of robbers, once sent 13,000 archers to help the Elamites against the Susites and Babylonians, is far too indefinite for us to be able to apply it to a war which Nebuchadnezzar in company with Media carried on against Elam; for the Susites are at least not Medes. And the notice in the book of Judith is self-evidently unhistorical; for it says that Nebuchadnezzar was king of the Assyrians and resided in the great city of Nineveh, and that he defeated Arphaxad the king of Media in the seventeenth year of his reign (Judith 1:1, 13). But Nebuchadnezzar neither resided in Nineveh, which had been destroyed shortly before; nor could he have made war on Arphaxad king of Media in the seventeenth year of his reign, because he had in that year begun to besiege Jerusalem with all his forces. But the additional considerations which Niebuhr brings forward in support of his hypothesis can as little stand the test. Neither Jer 25:25, where the kings of Media and Elam are mentioned among those who are to drink the cup of wrath, nor Eze 32:24., where Elam and the whole multitude of its people are brought forward as among those who were slain, and who sank into the nether parts of the earth, furnish proofs of the conquest and destruction of Elam by Nebuchadnezzar, or of a war between that king and Media. For the funeral-song in Ezekiel bears a thoroughly ideal

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1789

character, and announces the fall of all the heathen powers, without any regard to Nebuchadnezzar. This holds, too, in a sense, of Jer 25, where Nebuchadnezzar is certainly mentioned as the ruler into whose power all the nations are to be delivered for the space of seventy years, inasmuch as this announcement also launches out into the idea of a judgment of all nations; so that we are not entitled to assume that all the kingdoms of the earth, to whom the cup of wrath is presented, were to be conquered and brought under subjection by Nebuchadnezzar. Still less reason is there for inferring from Jer 27:3, that Nebuchadnezzar was involved in a war with Media at a time when, as is there stated, at the beginning of Zedekiah's reign, the kings of Edom, Moab, Ammon, and Phoenicia sent ambassadors to Jerusalem to recommend a coalition against the power of Babylon. Even if Nebuchadnezzar were then occupied in the eastern portion of his kingdom, yet there is nothing at all to prove that he was involved in war with Media or Elam. History says nothing of a war waged by Nebuchadnezzar on Elam, nor does this prophecy furnish any support for such an assumption. Although it does not set before us a "gradual ruin" of Elam (Hävernick), but rather a catastrophe brought on by God, yet the description is given in terms so general, that nothing more specific can be inferred from it regarding the time and the circumstances of this catastrophe. In this prophecy, Elam is not considered in its historical relation to the people of Israel, but as the representative of the heathen world lying beyond, which has not hitherto come into any relation towards the people of Israel, but which nevertheless, along with it, falls under the judgment coming on all nations, in order that, through the judgment, it may be led to the knowledge of the true God, and share in His salvation.

Against Babylon - Jeremiah 50-51

The genuineness of this prophecy has been impugned by the newer criticism in different ways; for some quite refuse to allow it as Jeremiah's, while others consider it a mere interpolation.^[25]
Hitzig (Exeg. Handb. 2 Aufl.) considers that this

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1790

oracle, with its epilogue, Jer 51:59-64, is not to be wholly rejected as spurious, as has been done by Von Cölln and Gramberg; he is so much the less inclined to reject it, because, although there is many an interpolated piece here and there (?), yet no independent oracle has hitherto been found in Jeremiah that is wholly interpolated. "In fact," he continues, "this oracle shows numerous traces of its genuineness, and reasons for maintaining it. The use of particular words (Jer 50:6; Jer 51:1, Jer 51:5,Jer 51:7, Jer 51:14, Jer 51:45, Jer 51:55), and the circle of figures employed (Jer 51:7-8, Jer 51:34, Jer 51:37), as well as the style (Jer 50:2-3, Jer 50:7-8, Jer 50:10), especially in turns like Jer 51:2; the concluding formula, Jer 51:57; the dialogue introduced without any forewarning, Jer 51:51, - all unmistakeably reveal Jeremiah; and this result is confirmed by chronological data." These chronological data, which Hitzig then extracts from particular verses, we cannot certainly esteem convincing, since they have been obtained through a method of exegesis which denies the spirit and the essential nature of prophecy; but his remarks concerning Jeremiah's use of words and his circle of images are perfectly well-founded, and may be considerably corroborated if the matter were more minutely investigated. Notwithstanding all this, Ewald has again repeated, in the second edition of his work on the Prophets, the assertion first made by Eichhorn, that this prophecy is spurious. He

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1791

does not, indeed, deny that "this long piece against Babylon has many words, turns of expression, and thoughts, nay, even the whole plan, in common with Jeremiah; and since Jeremiah is often accustomed in other places also to repeat himself, this might, at the first look, even create a prepossession favouring the opinion that it was composed by Jeremiah himself. But Jeremiah repeats himself in a more wholesale style, and is not unfaithful to himself in his repetitions: here, however, the Jeremianic element peers through only in single though very numerous passages, and the repeated portions are often completely transformed. What, therefore, appears here as Jeremianic is rather a studied repetition and imitation, which would require here to be all the stronger, when the piece was intended to pass as one of Jeremiah's writings." Ewald goes on to say that Babylon appears already as directly threatened by Cyrus; and the whole view taken of Babylon as a kingdom utterly degenerated, and unable any longer to escape the final destruction, - the prophetic impetuosity shown in rising up against the Chaldean oppression, - the public summons addressed to all the brethren living in Babylon, that they should flee from the city, now irrecoverably lost, and return to the holy land, - the distinct mention of the Medes and other northern nations as the mortal enemies of Babylon, and of the speedy and certain fall of this city; - all this, says Ewald, is foreign to Jeremiah, nay, even conflicting and impossible. For particular proof of this sweeping verdict, Ewald refers to the name שׁשׁך (Jer 51:41, as in Jer 25:26) for Babylon, לב for כּשׂדּים, Jer 51:1, and similar circumlocutions for Chaldean names, Jer 51:21. He refers also to certain words which are quite new, and peculiar only to Ezekiel and later writers: סגן, פּחה, Jer 51:23, Jer 51:25, Jer 51:27; גּלּוּלים, Jer 50:2; בּדּים as a designation of false prophets, Jer 50:36; also to החרים, to devote with a curse, Jer 50:21, Jer 50:26; Jer 51:3, which in the rest of Jeremiah occurs only Jer 25:9. Further, he refers to the headings found in Jer 50:1 and Jer 51:59, which are quite different from what Jeremiah himself would have written; and lastly, to the intimate connection subsisting between Jer 50:27; Jer 51:40, and Isa 34:6., between Jer 50:39 and Isa 34:14, and between 51:60ff. and Jer 34:16.
But all these considerations are much too weak to prove the spuriousness of the

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1792

passage before us. The connection with Isa 34 quite agrees with Jeremiah's characteristic tendency to lean on older prophecies, and reproduce the thoughts contained in them (we merely recall the case of the prophecy concerning Moab in Jer 48, against whose genuineness even Ewald has nothing to say); and it can be brought to tell against the genuineness of this oracle only on the groundless supposition that Isa 34 originated in exile times. The headings given in Jer 50:1 and Jer 51:59 contain nothing whatever that would be strange in Jeremiah: Jer 51:59 is not a title at all, but the commencement of the account regarding the charge which Jeremiah gave to Seraiah when he was going to Babylon, with reference to his carrying with him the prophecy concerning Babylon; and the heading in Jer 50:1 almost exactly agrees with that in Jer 46:13 (see the exposition). Of the alleged later words, החרים and גּלּוּלים are derived from the Pentateuch, בּדּים from Isa 44:25. סגן and פּחה certainly were not known to the Hebrews till the invasions of Judah by the Assyrians and Chaldeans; but he latter of the two words we find as early as in the address of the Assyrians in Isa 36:9, and the former in Isa 41:25 : thus, not a single one of the words alleged to have been first used by Ezekiel is peculiar to him. Finally, of the circumlocutions used for the names "Babylon" and "Chaldeans," Ewald himself confesses that שׁשׁך in Jer 25:26 may be Jeremiah's; and he has yet to give proof for the assertion that the names cited are merely circumlocutions in which a play is made on words that did not come into vogue till after Jeremiah's time. And as little has been even attempted in the way of establishing the opinion he has expressed regarding what is Jeremianic in the prophecy, - that it is a studied repetition and imitation, - or the assertion that Babylon is represented as being directly threatened by Cyrus. In the Old Testament Scriptures, Cyrus is represented as the king of Persia, which he was; but this prophecy says nothing of the Persians. Thus, the learned supplementary matter with which Ewald seeks to support his general assertions is by no means fitted to strengthen his position, but rather shows that the proper argument for rejecting this oracle as spurious is not to be found in the nature of this particular prophecy, but in the axiom openly expressed by Eichhorn,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1793

von Cölln, Gramberg, and other followers of the "vulgar rationalism," that Jeremiah could not have announced the destruction of Babylon by the Medes, because at his time the Medes had not yet appeared on the scene of history as a conquering nation; for, according to the principles of rationalism, the prophets could merely prophesy of things which lay within the political horizon. It has not escaped the acute observation of Hitzig, that the genuineness of this prophecy could not be shaken by such general assertions; hence he has adopted Movers' hypothesis of numerous interpolations, in order thereby to account for the use made of portions of Isaiah, which, on dogmatic grounds, are referred to the exile. But for this assumption also there are wanting proofs that can stand the test. Besides the general assertion that Jeremiah could not have repeated earlier prices word for word, the arguments which Movers and Hitzig bring forward from the context, or from a consideration of the contents, in the case of isolated verses, depend upon false renderings of words, conjectures of a merely subjective character, and misunderstandings of various kinds, which at once fall to the ground when the correct explanation is given.
The germ of this prophecy lies in the word of the Lord, Jer 25:12, "When seventy years are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and make it everlasting desolations;" and its position with regard to the other prophecies of Jeremiah against the nations has already been given in outline in the statement of Jer 25:26, "And the king of Sheshach (Babylon) shall drink after them." Just as these utterances (Jer 25:12, Jer 25:26) stand in full accord with the announcement that, in the immediate future, all nations shall be given into the power of the king of Babylon, and serve him seventy years; so, too, the prophecy against Babylon now lying before us not only does not stand in contradiction with the call addressed to Jeremiah, that he should proclaim to his contemporaries the judgment which Babylon is to execute on Judah and all nations, but it rather belongs to the complete solution of the problems connected with this call. The announcement of the fall of Babylon, and the release of Israel from Babylon, form

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1794

the subject of the prophecy, which is more than a hundred verses in length. This double subject, the two parts of which are so closely connected, is portrayed in a series of images which, nearly throughout, are arranged pretty loosely together, so that it is impossible to summarize the rich and varied contents of these figures, and to sketch a correct plan of the course of thought and of the divisions of the oracle. Hence, too, the views of expositors with regard to the division of the whole into parts or strophes widely differ;^[26] we follow the view of Ewald, that the whole falls into three main parts (Jer 50:2-28, Jer 50:29 on to Jer 51:26, and 51:27-58), every one of which begins with a spirited exhortation to engage in battle. These three main portions again fall into ten periods, of which the first three (Jer 50:2-10, Jer 50:11-20, and Jer 50:21-28) form the first main division; the four middle ones form the second main portion (Jer 50:29-40, Jer 50:41 to Jer 51:4, Jer 51:5-14, and Jer 51:15-26); while the following three form the last (vv. 27-37, 38-49, and 50-58). We further agree with what Ewald says regarding the contents of the first two parts in general, viz., that in the first the prevailing view is the necessity for the deliverance of Israel, and that in the second, the antithesis between Babylon on the one hand, and Jahveh together with Israel, His spiritual instrument, on the other, is fully brought out; but we do not agree with his remark concerning the third part, that there the prevailing feature is the detailed description of the condition of Israel at that time, for this does not at all agree with the contents of 51:27-58. Rather, the address rises into a triumphant description of the fall of Babylon, in which the Lord will show Himself as the avenger of His people. On the whole, then, the prophecy is neither wanting in arrangement

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1795

nor in that necessary progress in the development of thought which proves unity of conception and execution.

Chap. 50

Verse 1

The title, "The word which Jahveh spake concerning Babylon, concerning the land of the Chaldeans, by Jeremiah the prophet," follows Jer 46:13 in choosing אשׁר דּ instead of the usual אשׁר היה, and deviates from that passage only in substituting "by the hand of Jeremiah" for "to Jeremiah," as in Jer 37:2. The preference of the expression "spake by the hand of" for "spake to," is connected with the fact that the following prophecy does not contain a message of the Lord which came to Jeremiah, that he might utter it before the people, but a message which he was to write down and send to Babylon, Jer 51:60. The apposition to "Babylon," viz., "the land of the Chaldeans," serves the purpose of more exactly declaring that "Babylon" is to be understood not merely of the capital, but also of the kingdom; cf. Jer 50:8, Jer 50:45, and 51, 54.

Verses 2-10

Jer 50:2-10The fall of Babylon, and deliverance of Israel. - Jer 50:2. "Tell it among the nations, and cause it to be heard, and lift up a standard; cause it to be heard, conceal it not: say, Babylon is taken, Bel is ashamed, Merodach is confounded; her images are ashamed, her idols are confounded. Jer 50:3. For there hath come up against her a nation out of the north; it will make her land a desolation, and there shall be not an inhabitant in it: from man to beast, [all] have fled, are gone. Jer 50:4. In those days, and at that time, saith Jahveh, the children of Israel shall come, they and the children of Judah together; they shall go, weeping as they go, and shall seek Jahveh their God. Jer 50:5. They shall ask for Zion, with their faces [turned to] the road hitherwards, [saying], Come, and let us join ourselves to Jahveh by an eternal covenant [which] shall not be forgotten. Jer 50:6. My people have been a flock of lost ones; their shepherds have misled them [on] mountains which lead astray: from mountain to hill they went; they forgot their resting-place. Jer 50:7. All who found them have devoured them; and their enemies said, We are not guilty, for they have sinned against Jahveh, the dwelling-place of justice, and the hope of their fathers, Jahveh. Jer 50:8. Flee out of the midst of Babylon, and from the land of the Chaldeans; let

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1796

them go forth, and let them be like he-goats before a flock. Jer 50:9. For, behold, I will stir up, and bring up against Babylon, an assembly of great nations out of the land of the north: and they shall array themselves against her; on that side shall she be taken: his arrows [are] like [those of] a skilful hero [who] does not return empty. Jer 50:10. And [the land of the] Chaldeans shall become a spoil; all those who spoil her shall be satisfied, saith Jahveh."
In the spirit Jeremiah sees the fall of Babylon, together with its idols, as if it had actually taken place, and gives the command to proclaim among the nations this event, which brings deliverance for Israel and Judah. The joy over this is expressed in the accumulation of the words for the summons to tell the nations what has happened. On the expression, cf. Jer 4:5-6; Jer 46:14. The lifting up of a standard, i.e., of a signal-rod, served for the more rapid spreading of news; cf. Jer 4:6; Jer 6:1, Isa 13:2, etc. "Cause it to be heard" is intensified by the addition of "do not conceal it." The thing is to be proclaimed without reserve; cf. Jer 38:14. "Babylon is taken," i.e., conquered, and her idols have become ashamed, inasmuch as, from their inability to save their city, their powerlessness and nullity have come to light. Bel and Merodach are not different divinities, but merely different names for the chief deity of the Babylonians. Bel = Baal, the Jupiter of the Babylonians, was, as Bel-merodach, the tutelary god of Babylon. "The whole of the Babylonian dynasty," says Oppert, Expéd. en Mésopot. ii. p. 272, "places him [Merodach] at the head of the gods; and the inscription of Borsippa calls him the king of heaven and earth." עצבּים, "images of idols," and גּלּוּלים, properly "logs," an expression of contempt for idols (see on Lev 26:30), are synonymous ideas for designating the nature and character of the Babylonian gods.

Verse 3

Babylon is fallen by a people from the north, that has gone out against her, and makes her land a desolation. This nation is described in Jer 50:9 as a collection, union of great nations, that are enumerated especially in Jer 51:27-28. On "it [the nation] shall make her land," etc., cf. Jer 2:15; Jer 48:9; on the expression "from man to beast," cf. Jer 33:12; Jer 9:9. נדוּ is from נוּד, Jer 50:8 and Jer 49:30 = נדדוּ, from נדד, Jer 9:9.

Verses 4-6

Then, when Babylon shall

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1797

have fallen, the children of Israel and Judah return out of their captivity, seeking Jahveh their God with tears of repentance, and marching to Zion, for the purpose of joining themselves to Him in an eternal covenant. The fall of Babylon has the deliverance of Israel as its direct result. The prophet views this in such a way, that all the steps in the fulfilment (the return from Babylon, the reunion of the tribes previously separated, their sincere return to the Lord, and the making of a new covenant that shall endure for ever), which will actually follow successively in long periods, are taken together into one view. By the statement made regarding the time, "In those days, and at that time," the fall of Babylon and the deliverance of Israel (which Jeremiah sees in the spirit as already begun) are marked out as belonging to the future. Israel and Judah come together, divided no more; cf. Jer 3:18. "Going and weeping they go," i.e., they always go further on, weeping: cf. Jer 41:6; 2Sa 3:16; Ewald, §280, b. Cf. also Jer 3:21; Jer 31:9. Seeking the Lord their God, they ask for Zion, i.e., they ask after the way thither; for in Zion Jahveh has His throne. "The way hither" (i.e., to Jerusalem) "is their face," sc. directed. "Hither" points to the place of the speaker, Jerusalem. באוּ are imperatives, and words with which those who are returning encourage one another to a close following of the Lord their God. נלווּ is imperative for ילּווּ, like נקבּצוּ in Isa 43:9, Joe 3:11; cf. Ewald, §226, c. It cannot be the imperfect, because the third person gives no sense; hence Graf would change the vowels, and read נלוה. But suspicion is raised against this by the very fact that, excepting Ecc 8:15, לוה, in the sense of joining oneself to, depending on, occurs only in the Niphal. בּרית עולם is a modal accusative: "in an eternal covenant which shall not be forgotten," i.e., which we will not forget, will not break again. In fact, this is the new covenant which the Lord, according to Jer 31:31., will make in time to come with His people. But here this side of the matter is withdrawn from consideration; for the point treated of is merely what Israel, in his repentant frame and returning to God, vows he shall do.
Israel comes to this determination in consequence of the misery into which he has fallen because of his sins, Jer 50:5-7.

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1798

Israel was like a flock of lost sheep which their shepherds had led astray. צאן , a flock of sheep that are going to ruin. The participle in the plural is joined with the collective noun ad sensum, to show what is imminent or is beginning to happen. The verb היה points to the subject צאן; hence the Qeri היוּ is unnecessary. The plural suffixes of the following clause refer to עמּי as a collective. The shepherds led the people of God astray on הרים שׁובבים (a local accusative; on the Kethib שׁובבים, cf. Jer 31:32; Jer 49:4; it is not to be read שׁובבים), mountains that render people faithless. These mountains were so designated because they were the seats of that idolatry which had great power of attraction for a sinful people, so that the seduction or alienation of the people from their God is ascribed to them. שׁובב is used in the sense which the verb has in Isa 47:10. The Qeri שׁובבוּם gives the less appropriate idea, "the shepherds made the sheep stray." Hitzig's translation, "they drove them along the mountain," does to suit the verb שׁובב. Moreover, the mountains in themselves do not form unsuitable pasture-ground for sheep, and הרים does not mean "a bare, desolate mountain-range." The objection to our view of הרים, that there is no very evident proof that worship on high places is referred to (Graf), is pure fancy, and the reverse only is true. For the words which follow, "they (the sheep) went from mountain to hill, and forgot their resting-place," have no meaning whatever, unless they are understood of the idolatrous dealings of Israel. The resting-place of the sheep (רבחם, the place where the flocks lie down to rest), according to Jer 50:7, is Jahveh, the hope of their fathers. Their having forgotten this resting-place is the result of their going from mountain to hill: these words undeniably point to the idolatry of the people on every high hill (Jer 2:20; Jer 3:2; Jer 17:2, etc.).

Verse 7

The consequence of this going astray on the part of Israel was, that every one who found them devoured them, and while doing so, cherished the thought that they were not incurring guilt, because Israel had been given up to their enemies on account of their apostasy from God; while the fact was, that every offence against Israel, as the holy people of the Lord, brought on guilt; cf. Jer 2:3. This befell Israel because they have sinned against Jahveh. נוה צדק, "the habitation (or pasture-ground)

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1799

of righteousness." So, in Jer 31:23, Zion is called the mountain on which Jahveh sits enthroned in His sanctuary. As in other places Jahveh Himself is called a fortress, Psa 18:3; a sun, shield, Psa 84:12; a shade, Psa 121:5; so here He is called the One in whom is contained that righteousness which is the source of Israel's salvation. As such, He was the hope of the fathers, the God upon whom the fathers put their trust; cf. Jer 14:8; Jer 17:13; Psa 22:5. The repetition of יהוה at the end is intended to give an emphatic conclusion to the sentence.

Verses 8-10

To escape from this misery, Israel is to flee from Babylon; for the judgment of conquest and plunder by enemies is breaking over Babylon. The summons to flee out of Babylon is a reminiscence of Isa 38:20. The Kethib יצאוּ may be vindicated, because the direct address pretty often makes a sudden transition into the language of the third person. They are to depart from the land of the Chaldeans. No more will then be necessary than to change והיוּ into והיוּ. The simile, "like he-goats before the flock," does not mean that Israel is to press forward that he may save himself before any one else (Graf), but that Israel is to go before all, as an example and leader in the flight (Nägelsbach).

Verses 9-10

For the Lord arouses and leads against Babylon a crowd of nations, i.e., an army consisting of a multitude of nations. As meeעיר reminds us of Isa 13:17, so קהל גּוים גּ remind us of ממלכות גּוים נאספים in Isa 13:4. ערך ל, to make preparations against. משּׁם is not used of time (Rosenmüller, Nägelsbach, etc.), for this application of the word has not been established from the actual occurrence of instances, but it has a local meaning, and refers to the "crowd of nations:" from that place where the nations that come out of the north have assembled before Babylon. In the last clause, the multitude of great nations is taken together, as if they formed one enemy: "his arrows are like the arrows of a wisely dealing (i.e., skilful) warrior."^[27]
The

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1800

words לא ישׁוּב do not permit of being referred, on the strength of 2Sa 1:22, to one particular arrow which does not come back empty; for the verb שׁוּב, though perhaps suitable enough for the sword, which is drawn back when it has executed the blow, is inappropriate for the arrow, which does not return. The subject to ישׁוּב is גּבּור si , the hero, who does not turn or return without having accomplished his object; cf. Isa 55:11. In Jer 50:10, כּשׂדּים is the name of the country, "Chaldeans;" hence it is construed as a feminine. The plunderers of Chaldea will be able to satisfy themselves with the rich booty of that country.

Verses 11-20

Jer 50:11-20The devastation of Babylon and glory of Israel.  - Jer 50:11."Thou ye rejoice, though ye exult, O ye plunderers of mine inheritance, though ye leap proudly like a heifer threshing, and neigh like strong horses, Jer 50:12.Your mother will be very much ashamed; she who bare you will blush: behold, the last of the nations [will be] a wilderness, a desert, and a steppe. Jer 50:13.Because of the indignation of Jahveh it shall not be inhabited, and it shall become a complete desolation. Every one passing by Babylon will be astonished, and hiss because of all her plagues. Jer 50:14.Make preparations against Babylon round about, all ye that bend the bow; shoot at her, do not spare an arrow, for she hath sinned against Jahveh. Jer 50:15.Shout against her round about; she hath given herself up: her battlements are fallen, her walls are pulled down; for it is Jahveh's vengeance: revenge yourselves on her; as she hath done, do ye to her. Jer 50:16.Cut off the sower from Babylon, and him that handles the sickle in the time of harvest. From before the oppressing sword each one will turn to his own nation, and each one will flee to his own land. Jer 50:17. Israel is a scattered sheep [which] lions have driven away: the first [who] devoured him [was] the

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1801

king of Babylon; and this, the last, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, hath broken his bones. Jer 50:18. Therefore thus saith Jahveh of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I will punish the king of Babylon ad his land, as I have punished the king of Assyria. Jer 50:19. And I will bring back Israel to his pasture-ground, and he shall feed on Carmel and Bashan, and on the mountains of Ephraim his soul shall be satisfied. Jer 50:20.In those days, and at that time, saith Jahveh, the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, but it shall not be; and the sins of Judah, but they shall not be found: for I will pardon those whom I will leave remaining."

Verses 11-13

Jer 50:11 does not permit of being so closely connected with what precedes as to separate it from Jer 50:12 (De Wette, Nägelsbach). Not only is the translation, "for thou didst rejoice," etc., difficult to connect with the imperfects of all the verbs in the verse, but the direct address also does not suit Jer 50:10, and rather demands connection with Jer 50:12, where it is continued. כּי, of course, introduces the reason, yet not in such a way that Jer 50:11 states the cause why Chaldea shall become a spoil, but rather so that Jer 50:11 and Jer 50:12 together give the reason for the threatening uttered. The different clauses of Jer 50:11 are the protases, to which Jer 50:12 brings the apodosis. "You may go on making merry over the defeat of Israel, but shame will follow for this." The change of the singular forms of the verbs into plurals (Qeri) has been caused by the plural 'שׁסי , but is unnecessary, because Babylon is regarded as a collective, and its people are gathered into the unity of a person; see on Jer 13:20. "Spoilers of mine inheritance," i.e., of the people and land of the Lord; cf. Jer 12:7; Isa 17:14. On פּוּשׁ, to gallop (of a horse, Hab 1:8), hop, spring (of a calf, Mal. 3:20), see on Hab 1:8. דּשׁא is rendered by the lxx ἐν βοτάνη, by the Vulgate super herbam; after these, Ewald also takes the meaning of springing like a calf through the grass, since he explains דּשׁא  as exhibiting the correct punctuation, and remarks that פּוּשׁ, like הלך, can stand with an object directly after it; see §282, a. Most modern expositors, on the other hand, take דּשׁא as the fem. participle from דּוּשׁ, written with א instead of ה: "like a threshing heifer." On this, A Schultens, in his Animadv. philol., on this passage, remarks: Comparatio petita est a vitula, quae

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1802

in area media inter frumenta, ore ex lege non ligato (Deu 25:10), prae pabuli abundantia gestit ex exsultat. This explanation also gives a suitable meaning, without compelling us to do violence to the language and to alter the text. As to אבּירים, stallions, strong horses (Luther), see on Jer 8:16 and Jer 47:3. "Your mother" is the whole body of the people, the nation considered as a unity (cf. Isa 50:1; Hos 2:4; Hos 4:5), the individual members of which are called her sons; cf. Jer 5:7, etc. In Jer 50:12, the disgrace that is to fall on Babylon is more distinctly specified. The thought is gathered up into a sententious saying, in imitation of the sayings of Balaam. "The last of the nations" is the antithesis of "the first of the nations," as Balaam calls Amalek, Num 24:20, because they were the first heathen nation that began to fight against the people of Israel. In like manner, Jeremiah calls Babylon the last of the heathen nations. As the end of Amalek is ruin (Num 24:20), so the end of the last heathen nation that comes forward against Israel will be a wilderness, desert, steppe. The predicates (cf. Jer 2:6) refer to the country and kingdom of Babylon. But if the end of the kingdom is a desert, then the people must have perished. The devastation of Babylon is further portrayed in Jer 50:13, together with a statement of the cause: "Because of the anger of Jahveh it shall not be inhabited;" cf. Isa 13:20. The words from והיתה onwards are imitated from Jer 49:17 and Jer 19:8.

Verses 14-16

In order to execute this judgment on Babylon, the nations are commanded to conquer and destroy the city. The archers are to place themselves round about Babylon, and shoot at the city unsparingly. ערך does not mean to prepare oneself, but to prepare מלחמה, the battle, combat. The archers are mentioned by synecdoche, because the point in question is the siege and bombardment of Babylon; cf. Isa 13:18, where the Medes are mentioned as archers. ידה is used only here, in Kal, of the throwing, i.e., the shooting of arrows, instead of ירה, which is elsewhere the usual word for this; and, indeed, some codices have the latter word in this passage. "Spare not the arrow," i.e., do not spare an arrow; cf. Jer 51:3. הריע, to cry aloud; here, to raise a battle-cry; cf. Jos 6:16. The effect and result of the cry is, "she hath given her hand," i.e., given herself up. נתן יד usually

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1803

signifies the giving of the hand as a pledge of faithfulness (2Ki 10:15; Eze 17:18; Ezr 10:19), from which is derived the meaning of giving up, delivering up oneself; cf. 2Ch 30:8. Cf. Cornelius Nepos, Hamilc. c. 1, donec victi manum dedissent. The ἁπ. λεγ. אשׁויתיה (the Kethib is either to be read אשׁויּתיה, as if from a noun אשׁוית, or to be viewed as an error in transcription for אשׁיותיה, which is the Qeri) signifies "supports," and comes from אשׁה, Arab. asâ, to support, help; then the supports of a building, its foundations; cf. אשּׁיּא, Ezr 4:12. Here the word signifies the supports of the city, i.e., the fortifications of Babylon, ἐπάλξεις, propugnacula, pinnae, the battlements of the city wall, not the foundations of the walls, for which נפל is unsuitable. "It (sc., the destruction of Babylon) is the vengeance of Jahveh." "The vengeance of Jahveh" is an expression derived from Num 31:3. "Avenge yourselves on her," i.e., take retribution for what Babylon has done to other nations, especially to the people of God; cf. 27f. and Jer 51:11. The words, "cut off out of Babylon the sower and the reaper," are not to be restricted to the fields, which, according to the testimonies of Diod. Sic. ii. 7, Pliny xviii. 17, and Curtius Jer 51:1, lay within the wall round Babylon, but "Babylon" is the province together with its capital; and the objection of Nägelsbach, that the prophet, in the whole context, is describing the siege of the city of Babylon, is invalid, because Jer 50:12 plainly shows that not merely the city, but the province of Babylon, is to become a wilderness, desert, and steppe. The further threat, also, "every one flees to his own people from before the oppressing sword" (cf. Jer 25:38; Jer 46:16), applies not merely to the strangers residing in Babylon, but generally to those in Babylonia. Hitzig would arbitrarily refer these words merely to the husbandmen and field-workers. The fundamental passage, Isa 13:14, which Jeremiah had before his mind and repeats verbatim, tells decidedly against this view; cf. also Jer 51:9, Jer 51:44.

Verses 17-19

This judgment comes on Babylon because of her oppression and scattering of the people of Israel, whom the Lord will now feed in peace again on their native soil. Israel is like שׂה פזוּרה, a sheep which, having been scared away out of its stall or fold, is hunted into the wide

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1804

world; cf. פּזּרוּ בגּוים, Joe 3:2. Although פּזר, "to scatter," implies the conception of a flock, yet we cannot take שׂה as a collective (Graf), since it is nomen unitatis. The point in the comparison lies on the fact that Israel has been hunted, like a solitary sheep, up and down among the beasts of the earth; and pizeer is more exactly specified by the following clause, "lions have chased after it." The object of הדּיחוּ is easily derived from the context, so that we do not need to follow Hitzig in changing הדּיחוּ הראשׁון into הדּיחוּה ראשׁון. These kings are, the king of Assyria first, and the king of Babylon last. The former has dispersed the ten tribes among the heathen; the latter, by destroying the kingdom of Judah, and carrying away its inhabitants, has shattered the theocracy. The verbs apply to the figure of the lion, and the suffixes refer to Israel. אכל is used of the devouring of the flesh; עצּם is a denominative from עצם, and means the same as גּרם, Num 24:8, to break bones in pieces, not merely gnaw them. So long as the flesh only is eaten, the skeleton of bones remains; if these also be broken, the animal is quite destroyed.

Verses 18-20

The Assyrian has already received his punishment for that-the Assyrian kingdom has been destroyed; Babylon will meet with the same punishment, and then (Jer 50:19) Israel will be led back to his pasture-ground. נוה, pasture-ground, grass-plot, where sheep feed, is the land of Israel. Israel, led back thither, will feed on Carmel and Bashan, the most fertile tracts of the country, and the mountains of Ephraim and Gilead, which also furnish fodder in abundance for sheep. As to Gilead, see Num 32:1; Mic 7:14; and in regard to the mountains of Ephraim, Exo 34:13., where the feeding on the mountains of Israel and in the valleys is depicted as fat pasture. The mountains of Israel here signify the northern portion of the land generally, including the large and fertile plain of Jezreel, and the different valleys between the several ranges of mountains, which here and there show traces of luxuriant vegetation even yet; cf. Robinson's Physical Geography, p. 120. Then also the guilt of the sins of Israel and Judah shall be blotted out, because the Lord grants pardon to the remnant of His people. This promise points to the time of the New Covenant; cf. Jer 31:34 and Jer 33:8. The deliverance of Israel from Babylon coincides

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1805

with the view given of the regeneration of the people by the Messiah, just as we find throughout the second portion of Isaiah. On the construction 'יבקּשׁ את־עון ישׂ, cf. 35:14, and Gesenius, §143, 1. On the form תּמּצאינה, with (Hebrew characters) after the manner of verbs (Hebrew characters), cf. Ewald, §198, b.

Verses 21-28

The pride and power of Babylon are broken, as a punishment for the sacrilege he committed at the temple of the Lord. Jer 50:21. "Against the land, - Double-rebellion, - go up against it, and against the inhabitants of visitation; lay waste and devote to destruction after them, saith Jahveh, and do according to all that I have commanded thee. Jer 50:22. A sound of war [is] in the land, and great destruction. Jer 50:23. How the hammer of the whole earth is cut and broken! how Babylon has become a desolation among the nations! Jer 50:24. I laid snares for thee, yea, and thou hast been taken, O Babylon; but thou didst not know: thou wast found, and also seized, because thou didst strive against Jahveh. Jer 50:25. Jahveh hath opened His treasure-house, and brought out the instruments of His wrath; for the Lord, Jahveh of hosts, hath a work in the land of the Chaldeans. Jer 50:26. Come against her, [all of you], from the last to the first; open her storehouses: case her up in heaps, like ruins, and devote her to destruction; let there be no remnant left to her. Jer 50:27. Destroy all her oxen; let them go down to the slaughter: woe to them! for their day is come, the time of their visitation. Jer 50:28. [There is] a sound of those who flee and escape out of the land of Babylon, to declare in Zion the vengeance of Jahveh our God, the vengeance of His temple."
The punishment of Babylon will be fearful, corresponding to its crimes. The crimes of Babylon and its punishment Jeremiah has comprised, in Jer 50:21, in two names specially formed for the occasion. The enemy to whom God has entrusted the execution of the punishment is to march against the land מרתים. This word, which is formed by the prophet in a manner analogous to Mizraim, and perhaps also Aram Naharaim, means "double rebellion," or "double obstinacy." It comes from the root מרה, "to be rebellious" against Jahveh and His commandments, whence also מרי, "rebellion;" Num 17:1-13 :25, Eze 2:5, Eze 2:7, etc. Other interpretations of the

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1806

word are untenable: such is that of Fürst, who follows the Vulgate "terram dominantium," and, comparing the Aramaic מרא, "Lord," renders it by "dominion" (Herschaft). Utterly indefensible, too, is the translation of Hitzig, "the world of men" (Menschenwelt), which he derives from the Sanskrit martjam, "world," on the basis of the false assumption that the language of the Chaldeans was Indo-Germanic. The only doubtful points are in what respect Babylon showed double obstinacy, and what Jeremiah had in his mind at the time. The view of Hitzig, Maurer, Graf, etc., is certainly incorrect, - that the prophet was thinking of the double punishment of Israel by the Assyrians and by the Babylonians (Jer 50:17 and Jer 50:33); for the name is evidently given to the country which is now about to be punished, and hence to the power of Babylon. Nägelsbach takes a twofold view: (1) he thinks of the defiance shown by Babylon towards both man and God; (2) he thinks of the double obstinacy it exhibited in early times by building the tower, and founding the first worldly kingdom (Gen 10:8.), and in later times by its conduct towards the theocracy: and he is inclined rather to the latter than to the former view, because the offences committed by Babylon in early and in later times were, in their points of origin and aim, too much one and the same for any one to be able to represent them as falling under two divisions. This is certainly correct; but against the first view there is also the important consideration that מרה is pretty constantly used only of opposition to God and the word of God. If any one, notwithstanding this, is inclined to refer the name also to offences against men, he could yet hardly agree with Nägelsbach in thinking of the insurrections of Babylon against the kings of Assyria, their masters; for these revolts had no meaning in reference to the position of Babylon towards God, but rather showed the haughty spirit in which Babylon trod on all the nations.
The opinion of Dahler has most in its favour: "Doubly rebellious, i.e., more rebellious than others, through its idolatry ad its pride, which was exalted it against God, Jer 50:24, Jer 50:29." Rosenmüller, De Wette, etc., have decided in favour of this view. Although the dual originally expresses the idea of pairing, yet the Hebrew associates with double, twofold, the

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1807

idea of increase, gradation; cf. Isa 40:2; Isa 66:7. The object is prefixed for the sake of emphasis; and in order to render it still more prominent, it is resumed after the verb in the expression "against it." פּקוד, an infinitive in form, "to visit with punishment, avenge, punish," is also used as a significant name of Babylon: the land that visits with punishment is to be punished. Many expositors take חרב as a denominative from חרב, "sword," in the sense of strangling, murdering; so also in Jer 50:27. But this assumption is far from correct; nor is there any need for making it, because the meaning of destroying is easily obtained from that of being laid waste, or destroying oneself by transferring the word from things to men. החרים, "to proscribe, put under the ban," and in effect "to exterminate;" see on Jer 25:9. On "after them," cf. Jer 49:37; Jer 48:2, Jer 48:9,Jer 48:15, etc.

Verse 22

After the command there immediately follows its execution. A sound of war is heard in the land. The words are given as an exclamation, without a verb. As to שׁבר, which is an expression much used by Jeremiah, see on Jer 4:6.

Verse 23

Babylon, "the hammer of the whole earth," i.e., with which Jahveh has beaten to pieces the nations and kingdoms of the earth (Jer 51:20), is itself now being beaten to pieces and destroyed. On the subject, cf. Isa 14:5-6. Babylon will become the astonishment of the nations, Jer 51:41. "How!" is an exclamation of surprise, as in Zep 2:15 -a passage which probably hovered before the mind of the prophet.

Verses 24-28

This annihilation will come unexpectedly. As the bird by the snare of the fowler, so shall Babylon be laid hold of by Jahveh, because it has striven against Him. The Lord lays the snare for it, that it may be caught. יקושׁ, "to lay snares;" cf. Psa 141:9, where פּח is also found. ולא , "and thou didst not perceive," i.e., didst not mark it: this is a paraphrase of the idea "unexpectedly," suddenly; cf. Jer 51:8; Isa 47:11. This has been literally fulfilled on Babylon. According to Herodotus (i. 191), Cyrus took Babylon by diverting the Euphrates into a trench he had dug. By this stratagem the Persians threw themselves so unexpectedly on the Babylonians (ἐξ ἀπροσδοκήτου σφι παρέστησαν οἱ Πέρσαι), that when the outmost portions of the city had been already seized, those who lived in the middle had not

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1808

observed at all that they were captured (τοὺς τὸ μέσον οἰκέοντας ου ̓ μανθάνειν ἑαλωκότας). Similarly, when the city was taken under Darius Hystaspes, they were surprised that Zopyrus traitorously opened the gates to the besiegers (Herodotus, iii. 158). Babylon has contended against Jahveh, because, in its pride, it refused to let the people of God depart; cf. Jer 50:29 and Jer 50:33. In Jer 50:25 the sudden devastation of Babylon is accounted for. Jahveh opens His armoury, and brings out the instruments of His wrath, in order to execute His work on the land of the Chaldeans. אוצר, "magazine, treasure-chamber," is here applied to an armoury. The "instruments of His wrath" are, in Isa 13:5, the nations which execute the judgment of god-here, the instruments of war and weapons with which Jahveh Himself marches into battle against Babylon. On 'מלאכה וגו, cf. Jer 48:10. The business which the Lord has there regards the chastisement of Babylon for its insolence. For the transaction of this business He summons His servants, Jer 50:26. באוּ־להּ, as in Jer 46:22; Jer 49:9, is substantially the same as באוּ עליה, Jer 49:14; Jer 48:8. מקּץ, "from the end," or from the last hitherwards, the same as מקּצה, Jer 51:31, i.e., all together on to the last; cf. Gen 19:4; Gen 47:2, etc. "Open her (Babylon's) barns" or granaries; "heap it up (viz., what was in the granaries) like heaps" of grain or sheaves, "and devote it to destruction," i.e., consume it with fire, because things on which the curse was imposed must be burnt; cf. Jos 11:12 and Jos 11:13. All the property found in Babylon is to be collected in heaps, and then burnt with the city. The use of the image is occasioned by the granaries. מאבסיה is ἅπ. λεγ., from אבס, to give fodder to cattle, - properly a stall for fodder, then a barn, granary. ערמה is a heap of grain (Sol 7:3), sheaves (Rth 3:7), also of rubbish (Neh. 3:34). As Jer 50:26 declares what is to be done with goods and chattels, so does Jer 50:27 state what is to be done with the population. The figure employed in Jer 50:26 is followed by the representation of the people as oxen destined for slaughter; in this Jeremiah had in his mind the prophecy found in Isa 34, in which the judgment to come on Edom is depicted as a slaughter of lambs, rams, and he-goats: the people of Edom are thus compared to cattle that may be offered in sacrifice. This figure

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1809

also forms the basis of the expression ירד לטּבח in Jer 48:15, where this style of speaking is used with regard to the youths or the young troops; cf. also Jer 51:40. The פּרים, accordingly, designate not merely the chief among the people, or the men of rank, but represent the whole human population. In the last clause ("for their day is come," etc.), there is a transition in the discourse from the figure to the real subject itself. The suffix in עליהם does not refer to the oxen, but to the men over whose murder there is an exclamation of woe. In like manner, "their day" means the day of judgment for men, viz., the time of their visitation with punishment; see on Jer 46:21. Fugitives and escaped ones will bring to Zion, and proclaim the news of the execution of this fearful judgment, that the Lord has fulfilled the vengeance of His temple, i.e., avenged on Babylon the burning of His temple by the Chaldeans. The fugitives and escaped ones are the Israelites, who were summoned to flee from Babylon, Jer 50:3. On "the vengeance of Jahveh," cf. Jer 50:15 and Jer 51:11.

Verses 29-40

The pride of Babylon is humbled through the utter destruction of the people and the land. - Jer 50:29. "Summon archers against Jerusalem, all those who bend the bow; encamp against her round about. Let there be no escape for her; recompense to her according to her work; according to that which she hath done, do ye to her: for she hath presumed against Jahveh, against the Holy One of Israel. Jer 50:30. Therefore shall her young men fall in her streets, and all her men of war shall fail in that day, saith Jahveh. Jer 50:31. Behold, I am against thee, O Pride! said the Lord, Jahveh of hosts; for thy day hath come, the time [when] I visit thee. Jer 50:32. And Pride shall stumble and fall, and he shall have none to lift him up; and I will kindle fire in his cities, and it shall devour all that is round about him. Jer 50:33. Thus saith Jahveh of hosts, the Children of Israel and the children of Judah are oppressed together, and all who led them captive kept hold of them; they refused to let them go. Jer 50:34. Their Redeemer is strong; Jahveh of hosts is His name: He shall surely plead their cause, that He may give rest to the earth, and make the inhabitants of Babylon tremble. Jer 50:35. A sword [is] against the Chaldeans, saith Jahveh, and against

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1810

'the inhabitants of Babylon, and against her princes, and against her wise men. Jer 50:36. A sword [is] against the liars, and they shall become fools; a sword is against her heroes, and they shall be confounded. Jer 50:37. A sword [is] against his horses, and against his chariots, and against all the auxiliaries which [are] in the midst of her, and they shall become women; a sword is against her treasures, and they shall be plundered. Jer 50:38. A drought is against her waters, and they shall become dry; for it is a land of graven images, and they are mad upon idols. Jer 50:39. Therefore shall wild beasts dwell [there] with jackals, and ostriches shall dwell in it; and it shall no more be inhabited for ever, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation. Jer 50:40. As God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah and their inhabitants, saith Jahveh, no man shall dwell there, nor shall a son of man sojourn in it."
Further description of the execution of God's wrath. Archers shall come and besiege Babylon round about, so that no one shall escape. The summons, "Call archers hither," is a dramatic turn in the thought that the siege is quickly to ensue. השׁמיע is used here as in Jer 51:27, to summon, call by making proclamation, as in 1Ki 15:22. רבּים does not signify "many," as the ancient versions give it; this agrees neither with the apposition which follows, "all that bend the bow," nor with Jer 50:26, where all, to the last, are summoned against Babylon. Raschi, followed by all the moderns, more correctly renders it "archers," and derives it from רבה = רבב, Gen 49:23, cf. with Jer 21:10, like רב, Job 16:13. The apposition, "all those who bend the bow," gives additional force. חנה with accus. means to besiege; cf. Psa 53:6. "Let there be no escape" is equivalent to saying, "that none may escape from Babylon." The Qeri להּ after יהי is unnecessary, and merely taken from Jer 50:26. On the expression "render to her," etc., cf. Jer 25:14; and on "according to all," etc., f. Jer 50:15. "For she hath acted presumptuously against Jahveh," by burning His temple, and keeping His people captive: in this way has Babylon offended "against the Holy One of Israel." This epithet of God is taken from Isaiah, cf. Isa 51:5. This presumption must be punished.

Verses 30-32

Jer 50:30 is a repetition of Jer 49:26. - Jer 50:31. The Lord will now visit the presumption of Babylon. The day

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1811

of punishment has arrived. On "behold, I am against thee," cf. Jer 21:13. "O arrogance, pride!" is directly addressed to Babylon: in Jer 50:32 also there is a like designation of Babylon as the personification of pride. On the words "for thy day is come," cf. Jer 50:27. "And I will kindle a fire," etc., stands as in Jer 21:14, where, however, "in its forest" is found instead of "in his cities." The former, indeed, is the reading rendered by the lxx in this passage; but they have acted quite arbitrarily in this, since Jeremiah, for the most part, varies individual words when he repeats a thought. "In his cities" does not suit very well, inasmuch as the other cities of the country belonged to Babylon, the μητρόπολις as hers, and in Jer 51:43 they are spoken of as hers; cf. Jer 19:15; Jer 34:1; Jer 49:13, etc.

Verses 33-38

Further description of the guilt and punishment of Babylon. The presumptuous pride manifests itself in the fact that Israel and Judah still languish in exile. All those who have been seized and carried away they have kept hold of. שׁביהם is used as in Isa 14:2. They refuse to let them go, as Pharaoh once did, Exo 7:14, 27; Exo 9:2; cf. Isa 14:17. Jahveh, the deliverer of Israel, cannot endure this. As the strong One, the God of hosts, He will lead them in the fight; as their advocate, He will obtain their dues for them; cf. Jer 25:31; Isa 49:25. Dahler, Ewald, and Umbreit follow the Vulgate and the Chaldee in taking 'למען הרגּיע as synonymous with הרגּיז, in the sense of shaking, rousing, a meaning which רגע has in the Kal, but which cannot be made out for the Hiphil. In the Hiphil it means to give rest, to come to rest, Deu 28:65; Isa 34:14; Isa 61:4; Jer 31:2; and in the Niphal, to rest, keep quiet, Jer 47:6. This is the meaning given by the Syriac, Raschi, Kimchi, Rosenmüller, Maurer, Hitzig, etc., and supported by a comparison with Isa 14:7, Isa 14:3,Isa 14:16. Babylon has hitherto kept the earth in unrest and anxiety (Isa 14:16); now it is to get rest (Isa 14:3, Isa 14:7), and trembling or quaking for fear is to come on Babylon. The two verbs, which have similar sounds, express a contrast. On the form of the infinitive הרגּיע, cf. Ewald, §238, d. In order to conduct the case of Israel as against Babylon, the Lord (Jer 50:35-38) calls for the sword against the Chaldeans, the inhabitants of Babylon, on their princes, wise men, heroes, and the whole army, the

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1812

treasures and the waters. There is no verb following חרב, but only the object with על, the words being put in the form of an exclamation, on account of the passion pervading them. The sword is to come and show its power on the Chaldeans, i.e., the population of the rural districts, on the inhabitants of the capital, and further, on the princes and wise men (magicians). A special class of the last named are the בּדּים, properly "babblers," those who talk at random, here "soothsayers" and lying prophets, the astrologers of Babylon; see Delitzsch on Isa 44:25 [Clark's translation, For. Theol. Lib.]. ונאלוּ, "And they shall be as fools;" see on Jer 5:4. Further, on the warriors, the horses, and war-chariots, the main strength of the Asiatic conquerors, cf. Jer 46:9, Isa 43:17; Psa 20:8. כּל־הערב, "all the mixed multitude" in the midst of Babylon: these are here the mercenaries ad allies (as to this word, see on Jer 25:20). These shall become women, i.e., weak and incapable of resistance; see Nah 3:13. The last objects of vengeance are the treasures and the waters of Babylon. In Jer 50:38 the Masoretes have pointed חרב, because חרב, "sword," seemed to be inapplicable to the waters. But indeed neither does the sword, in the proper sense of the word, well apply to treasures; it rather stands, by synecdoche, for war. In this improper meaning it might also be used with reference to the waters, in so far as the canals and watercourses, on which the fertility of Babylonia depended, were destroyed by war. Hence many expositors would read חרב here also, and attribute the employment of this word to the rhetorical power connected with enumeration. Others are of opinion that חרב may also mean aridity, drought, in Deu 28:22; but the assumption is erroneous, and cannot be confirmed by that passage. Neither can it be denied, that to confine the reference of the expression "her waters" to the canals and artificial watercourses of Babylonia seems unnatural. All these received their water from the rivers Euphrates and Tigris, the volume of water in which remained uninfluenced by war. We therefore follow Hitzig in holding that חרב is the correct punctuation; in the transition from חרב into חרב, with its similar sound, we neither perceive any injury done to rhetorical force, derived from an enumeration of objects, nor any need for referring the following clause, which

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1813

assigns the reason merely to such rhetorical considerations as Graf does. In the drying up of the water there is no allusion to the diversion of the Euphrates, by which Cyrus opened up for himself an entrance into the city (Herodotus, i. 190); the drying up is merely appointed by God, as a consequence of continued drought, for the purpose of destroying the land. Hitzig's opinion neither suits the context, nor can be justified otherwise; he holds that water is the emblem of the sea on nations, the surging multitude of people in the streets of the city, and he refers for proof to Jer 51:36 and Isa 21:1 (!). The clauses in Jer 50:38, which assign the reason, refer to the whole threatening, Jer 50:35-38. Babylon is to be destroyed, with its inhabitants and all its means of help, because it is a land of idols (cf. Jer 51:52 and Isa 21:9), and its inhabitants suffer themselves to be befooled by false gods. התהולל means to act or behave like a madman, rave, Jer 25:16; here, to let oneself be deprived of reason, not (as Graf thinks) to fall into a sacred frenzy. אימים, terrors, Psa 88:16; here, objects of fear and horror, i.e., idols.

Verse 39

Therefore shall Babylon become an eternal waste, where none but beasts of the desert find shelter, where no human being dwells. This threat is formed out of reminiscences from Isa 13:20-22 and Isa 34:14. For ציּים and איּים, see on Isa 34:14; for בּנות יענה, see on Isa 13:21. The second half of the verse agrees word for word with Isa 13:20.
Jer 50:40 is a repetition of Jer 49:18, and in its first half is founded on Isa 13:19.

Verses 41-46

Jer 50:41-46The agents who execute the judgment. - Jer 50:41. "Behold, a people shall come from the north, and a great nation, and many kings shall be raised up from the most distant sides of the earth. Jer 50:42. Bow and javelin shall they seize: they are cruel, and will not pity; their voice shall sound like the sea, and they shall ride upon horses, [each one] arrayed like a man for the battle, against thee, O daughter of Babylon. Jer 50:43. The king of Babylon hath heard the report concerning them, and his hands have fallen down: distress hath seized him, writing pain, like [that of] the woman in childbirth. Jer 50:44. Behold, he shall come up like a lion from the glory of Jordan to a habitation of rock; but in a moment will I make them run away from her, and will set

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1814

over her him who is chosen: for who is like me, and who will appoint me a time [to plead my defence]? and what shepherd [is there] that will stand before me? Jer 50:45. Therefore hear ye the counsel of Jahveh which He hath taken against Babylon, and His purposes which He hath purposed against the land of the Chaldeans: Assuredly they shall drag them away, the smallest of the flock; assuredly [their] habitation shall be astonished at them. Jer 50:46. At the cry, 'Babylon is taken,' the earth is shaken, and a cry [for help] is heard among the nations. "Thus saith Jahveh: Behold, I will stir up against Babylon, and against the inhabitants of [as it were] the heart of mine opponents, the spirit of a destroyer. Jer 51:2. And I will send against Babylon strangers, and they shall winnow her, and empty her land, because they are against her round about in a day of evil. Jer 51:3. Against [him who] bends let the bender bend his bow, and against [him who] lifts up himself in his coat of mail: and do not spare her young men; devote to destruction all her host, Jer 51:4. That slain ones may fall in the land of the Chaldeans, and those that are pierced through in her streets."
The greater portion of this strophe consists of quotations from former utterances. Jer 51:41-43 are taken from Jer 6:22-24, and Jer 51:44-46 from Jer 49:19-21; here they are applied to Babylon. What is said in Jer 6:22-24 concerning the enemy out of the north who will devastate Judah, is here transferred to the enemy that is to destroy Babylon. For this purpose, after the words "and a great nation," are added "and many kings," in order to set forth the hostile army advancing against Babylon as one composed of many nations; and in consequence of this extension of the subject, the verb יערוּ is used in the plural, and אכזרי is changed into אכזרי המּה. Moreover, the mention of the "daughter of Babylon" instead of the "daughter of Zion" is attended by a change from the directly communicative form of address in the first person ("We have heard," etc., Jer 51:43) into the third person ("The king of Babylon hath heard," etc.). In applying the expression used in Jer 49:19-21 regarding the instrument chosen for the destruction of Edom, to the instrument selected against Babylon (Jer 51:44-46), the names "Babylon" and "and land

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1815

of the Chaldeans" are substituted for "Edom" and "the inhabitants of Teman" (Jer 49:20); but beyond this, only the last verse is changed, in accordance with the change of circumstances. The thought that, in consequence of the fall of Edom, the earth trembles, and Edom's cry of anguish is heard on the Red Sea, is intensified thus: by the sound or cry, "Babylon is taken," the earth is shaken, and a cry is heard among the nations. The conquest of Babylon, the mistress of the world, puts the whole world in anxiety and fear, while the effects of Edom's fall extend only to the Red Sea. The Kethib ארוצם, Jer 51:44, seems to come from the verb רצץ, in the sense of pushing, so that it is not a mere error in transcription for אריצם. Moreover, such changes made on former utterances, when they are repeated and applied to Babylon, show that these verses are not glosses which a reader has written on the margin, and a later copyist inserted into the text, but that Jeremiah himself has applied these earlier words in his address against Babylon. The two passages are not merely quite appropriately arranged beside one another, but even present in their connection a thought which has not hitherto been met with in the address against Babylon, and which does not recur afterwards. The enemy that is to conquer Babylon is certainly pointed out, so early as v. 9, as an assemblage of great nations out of the north, but not more particularly characterized there; but the nations that are to constitute the hostile army are not further designated till Jer 51:11 and Jer 51:27. The second quotation, Jer 51:44-46, adds the new thought that the appearance of this enemy against Babylon is owing to a decree of the Lord, the execution of which no man can prevent, because there is none like Jahveh. The figurative description of the enemy as a lion coming up out of the thicket of reeds at the Jordan, frightening the herd feeding on their pasture-ground, and carrying off the weakly sheep, is appropriate both to Nebuchadnezzar's expedition against Edom, and to the invasion of Babylonia by the Medes and their allies, for the purpose of laying waste the country of the Chaldeans, smiting the inhabitants of Babylon, and conquering it. Even the expression נוה permits of being applied to Babylonia, which was protected by its canal system and the strong walls of its capital.

Chap. 51

Verses 1-2

In Jer 51:1-4, the terrible character of the hostile nation is further described. Against Babylon and the inhabitants of Chaldea, God stirs up the "spirit of a destroyer," viz., a savage nation that will massacre the Chaldeans without pity. לב , lit., "the heart of mine adversaries," is the word כּשׂדּים, changed, according to the canon Atbash (see on Jer 25:26), for the purpose of obtaining the important meaning that Chaldea is the centre of God's enemies. This explanation of the name involves the thought that all enmity against God the Lord culminates in Babylon; on the basis of this representation Babylon is called, Rev 17:5, "the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth." רוּח משׁחית does not mean καύσωνα διαφθείροντα (lxx), ventum pestilentem (Vulgate), "a sharp wind" (Luther), nor, as it is usually translated, "a destroying wind;" for העיר רוּח is nowhere used of the rousing of a wind, but everywhere means "to rouse the spirit of any one," to stir him up to an undertaking; cf. Hag 1:14; 1Ch 5:26; 2Ch 21:16, and 2Ch 36:22. Jeremiah also employs it thus in Jer 51:11, and this meaning is quite suitable here also. משׁחית is a substantive, as in Jer 4:7 : "the spirit of a destroyer." The figure of winnowing, which follows in Jer 51:2, does not by any means necessarily require the meaning "wind," because the figure contained in the word זרוּה was first called forth by the employment of זרים, "strangers" = barbarians. The sending of the זרים to Babylon has no connection with the figure of the wind, and it even remains a question whether זרוּה really means here to winnow, because the word is often used of the scattering of a nation, without any reference to the figure of winnowing; cf. Lev 26:33; Eze 5:10; Eze 12:15, etc., also Jer 49:32, Jer 49:36. However, this thought is suggested by what follows, "they empty her hand," although the clause which assigns the reason, "because they are against her round about" (cf. Jer 4:17), does not correspond with this figure, but merely declares that the enemies which attack Babylon on every side disperse its inhabitants and empty the land.

Verses 3-4

These strangers shall kill, without sparing, every warrior of Babylon, and annihilate its whole military forces. In the first half of the verse the reading is doubtful, since the Masoretes would have the second ידרד (Qeri) expunged, probably because (as Böttcher,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1817

N. Aehrenl. ii. S. 166, supposes) they considered it merely a repetition. The meaning is not thereby changed. According to the Qeri, we would require to translate, "against him who bends the bow, may there be, or come, one who bends his bow;" according to the Kethib, "against him who bends the bow, may he who bends his bow bend it." As to אל־ידרך with אשׁר omitted, cf. 1Ch 15:12; 2Ch 1:4, and Ewald, §333, b. יתעל בּס' stands in apposition to אל־ידרך ; יתעל is the Hithpael from עלה, and means to raise oneself: it is to be taken as the shortened form of the imperfect passive; cf. Gesenius, §128, Rem. 2. Certainly, the Hithpael of עלה occurs nowhere else, but it is quite appropriate here; so that it is unnecessary, with Hitzig, to adduce, for explanation, the Arabic tl’, to stretch the head out of anything, or, with Ewald, to derive the form from the Aramaic עלל, Arabic gl, to thrust in. Neither is there any foundation for the remark, that the abbreviated form of the imperfect would be admissible only if אל were found instead of אל. Indeed, the Syriac, Targum, and Vulgate have actually read and rendered from אל, which several codices also present, "Let him not bend his bow, nor stretch himself in his coat of mail." But by this reading the first half of the verse is put in contradiction to the second; and this contradiction is not removed by the supposition of J. D. Michaelis and Hitzig, who refer these clauses to the Chaldeans, and find the thought expressed in them, that the Chaldeans, through loss of courage, cannot set themselves for defence. For, in that case, we would be obliged, with Hitzig, to explain as spurious the words that follow, "and spare ye not her young men;" but for this there is no valid reason. As to החרימוּ, cf. Jer 50:21, Jer 50:26. On Jer 51:4, cf. Jer 50:30 and Jer 49:26. The suffix in "her streets" refers to Babylon.

Verses 5-14

Because of the righteousness of Israel, Babylon is to be irretrievably destroyed. Jer 51:5. "For Israel is not forsaken, nor Judah of his God, of Jahveh of hosts; but their land is full of guilt because of the Holy One of Israel. Jer 51:6. Flee out of the midst of Babylon, and save ye every one his life: do not perish for her iniquity; because it is a time of vengeance for Jahveh; He renders to her what she has committed. Jer 51:7. Babylon [was] a golden cup in the hand

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1818

of Jahveh, that intoxicated all the earth. Nations have drunk of her wine, therefore nations are mad. Jer 51:8. Babylon has fallen suddenly and been broken: howl over her: take balsam for her pain; perhaps she may be healed. Jer 51:9. ‘We have tried to heal Babylon, but she is not healed. Leave her, and let us go each one to his own land; for her judgment reaches unto heaven, and is lifted up to the clouds.' Jer 51:10. Jahveh hath brought forth our righteousnesses; come, and let us declare in Zion the doing of Jahveh our God. Jer 51:11. Sharpen the arrow, fill the shields: Jahveh hath roused the spirit of the kings of Media; for His counsel is against Babylon, to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of Jahveh, the vengeance of His temple. Jer 51:12. Against the walls of Babylon raise a standard; strengthen the watch, set watchmen, prepare the ambushes: for Jahveh hath both devised and done what He spake against the inhabitants of Babylon. Jer 51:13. O thou that dwellest upon many waters, rich in treasures, thine end hath sworn by Himself, 'Surely I have filled thee with men, as [with] the locust; and they shall raise a shout of joy against thee.'"
The offence of Babylon against the Holy One of Israel demands its destruction. In Jer 51:5, two reasons are given for God's determination to destroy Babylon. The Lord is induced to this (1) by His relation to Israel and Judah, whom Babylon will not let go; (2) by the grave offence of Babylon. Israel is לא אלמן, "not widowed," forsaken by his God; i.e., Jahveh, the God of hosts, has not rejected His people for ever, so as not to trouble Himself any more about them; cf. Isa 50:1; Isa 54:4. "Their land" - the land of the Chaldeans - "is full of guilt before the Holy One of Israel," partly through their relation to Israel (Jer 50:21), partly through their idolatry (Isa 50:2, 38). מן does not mean here "on the side of," but "on account of," because they do not acknowledge Jahveh as the Holy One of Israel.

Verse 6

In order to escape the punishment that is to fall on the guilt-laden city, the Israelites living in Babylon must flee to save their lives; cf. Jer 50:8, and on the mode of expression, Jer 48:6. "Be not destroyed בּעונהּ, for her iniquity," (בּ of price), not "in her guilt" = punishment for sin (Graf), or "through her guilt" (Nägelsbach). Both of these last two

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1819

views are against the context; for the idea is, that Israel must flee to save his life, and that he too may not atone for the guilt of Babylon. On the expression, "It is a time of vengeance," etc., cf. Jer 50:15, Isa 34:8. גּמוּל , as in Isa 59:18; Isa 66:6. גּמוּל, prop. accomplishment, actual proof, is used both of human and divine doing and working, of human misdeeds and divine recompense. הוּא is used emphatically.

Verses 7-10

Babylon, certainly, in its former power and greatness, was a golden goblet, by means of which Jahveh presented to the nations the wine of His wrath, and intoxicated them; but now it is fallen, and broken without remedy. Isa 21:9 finds an echo in the expression, "Babylon is fallen." The figure of the cup refers us back to Jer 25:15., where, however, it is applied in a different way. The cup is said to be of gold, in order to point out the splendour and glory of Nebuchadnezzar's dominion. "In the hand of Jahveh," i.e., used by Him as His instrument for pouring out His wrath to the nations. But Babylon has suddenly fallen and been broken in pieces. At this point Jeremiah drops the figure of the cup, for a golden cup does not break when it falls. The fall is so terrible, that the nations in Babylon are summoned to participate in the lamentation, and to lend their aid in repairing her injuries. But they answer that their attempts to heal her are fruitless. (On צרי, cf. Jer 46:11 and Jer 8:22.) The terrible and irreparable character of the fall is thus expressed in a dramatic manner. We must neither think of the allies and mercenaries as those who are addressed (Schnurrer, Rosenmüller, Maurer, Hitzig), nor merely the Israelites who had been delivered from Babylon (Umbreit). The latter view is opposed by the words which follow, "Let every one go to his own country;" this points to men out of different lands. And the former assumption is opposed by the consideration that not merely the mercenaries, but also the allies are to be viewed as fallen and ruined together with Babylon, and that Babylon, which had subdued all the nations, has no allies, according to the general way in which the prophet views these things. Those addressed are rather the nations that had been vanquished by Babylon and detained in the city, of which Israel was one. Inasmuch as these were the servants of Babylon, and as such bound to pay her service,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1820

they are to heal Babylon; and because the attempts to heal her prove fruitless, they are to leave the ruined city. They answer this summons by the resolve, "We will go every one to his own land;" cf. Jer 50:8, Jer 50:16. The motive for this resolution, "for her guilt reaches up to heaven," certainly shows that it is Israelites who are speaking, because it is only they who form their opinions in such a way; but they speak in the name of all the strangers who are in Babylon. משׁפּט is the matter upon which judgment is passed, i.e., the transgression, the guilt, analogous to משׁפּט דּמים, Eze 7:23, and משׁפּט מות , Deu 19:6; Deu 21:22; it does not mean the punishment adjudged, of which we cannot say that it reaches up to heaven. On this expression, cf. Psa 57:11; Psa 108:5. Through the fall of Babylon, the Lord has made manifest the righteousness of Israel; the redeemed ones are to proclaim this in Zion. צדקות does not mean "righteous acts" (Jdg 5:11), but proofs of the righteousness of Israel as opposed to Babylon, which righteousness Babylon, through tyrannical oppression of the people that had been delivered up to it merely for chastisement, has failed to perceive, and which, so long as the Lord did not take His people to Himself again in a visible manner, was hidden from the world; cf. Psa 37:6.

Verses 11-12

The instruments which the Lord employs in bringing about the fall of Babylon are the kings of the Medes, i.e., the provincial governors, or heads of the separate provinces into which the Medes in ancient times were divided, until, after revolting from the Assyrians in the year 714 b.c., they put themselves under a common head, in order to assert their independence, and chose Dejokes as their monarch. See Speigel's Erân (1863, S. 308ff.), and Delitzsch on Isa 13:17, who rightly remarks that in Isa 13:17, as well as here, מדי is a general designation for the Aryan tribes of Iran, taken from the most important and influential nation. In Jer 21:2, Isaiah mentions Elam in the first series, along with Media, as a conqueror of Babylon; and the Babylonian kingdom was destroyed by Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian. But the Persians are first named in the Old Testament by Ezekiel and Daniel, while the name "Elam" as a province of the Persian kingdom is gradually lost, from the times of Cyrus onwards, in that of the "Persians." The princes of Media

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1821

are to prepare themselves for besieging and conquering Babylon. הבר (from בּרר), prop. to polish, cleanse from dirt and rust. The arrows are thereby sharpened; cf. Isa 49:2. מלאוּ השּׁלטים is variously explained. The meaning of "shields" is that best established for שּׁלטים (see on 2Sa 8:7); while the meaning of "armour equipment," which is defended by Thenius, is neither very suitable for 2Sa 8:7 nor for 2Ki 11:10 and Sol 4:4. There is no the least foundation for the meaning "quiver," which is assumed merely for this passage. מלאוּ is to be explained in accordance with the analogous expression in 2Ki 9:24, מלּא ידו בקשׁת, "he filled his hand with the bow," i.e., seized the bow. "Fill the shields" with your bodies, or with your arms, since we put these among the straps of the shields. Those addressed are the kings of the Medes, whose spirit God has stirred up to make war against Babylon; for it is against her that His mind or plan is directed. As to the expression, "for it is the vengeance of Jahveh," etc., cf. Jer 50:15, Jer 50:28. The attack is to be directed against the walls of Babylon. נס, "standard," is the military sign carried before the army, in order to show them the direction they are to take, and the point of attack. משׁמר "watch," is the force besieging the city; cf. 2Sa 11:16. "Make the watch strong," i.e., enclose the city firmly. This is more exactly specified in the following clauses. "Set watches," not as a guard for their own camp (Hitzig), but against the city, in order to maintain a close siege. "Place the ambushes," that they may peep into the city whenever a sally is made by the besieged; cf. Jos 8:14., Jdg 20:33. "For what Jahveh hath determined, He will also perform." גּם־גּם, "as well as:" He has resolved as well as done, i.e., as He has resolved, He also executes.

Verse 13

All the supports of the Babylonian power, its strong position on the Euphrates, and its treasures, which furnished the means for erecting strong fortifications, cannot avert the ruin decreed by God. As to the form שׁכנתּי, see on Jer 22:23. It is the city with its inhabitants that is addressed, personified as a virgin or daughter. The many waters on which Babylon dwells are the Euphrates, with the canals, trenches, dykes, and marches which surrounded Babylon, and afforded her a

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1822

strong protection against hostile attacks, but at the same time contributed to increase the wealth of the country and the capital.^[28]
The great riches, however, by which Babylon became רבּת אוצרות, "great in treasures," so that Aeschylus (Pers. 52) calls it Βαβυλῶν ἡ πολύχρυσος, were derived from the enormous spoils which Nebuchadnezzar brought to it, partly from Nineveh, partly from Jerusalem, and from the tribute paid by Syria and the wealthy commercial cities of Phoenicia. "Thine end is come;" cf. Gen 6:13. אמּת בּצעך, "the ell (i.e., the measure) of thy gain," i.e., the limit put to thine unjust gain. The words are connected with "thine end is come" by zeugma. This explanation is simpler than the interpretation adopted by Venema, Eichhorn, and Maurer, from the Vulgate pedalis praecisionis tuae, viz., "the ell of cutting thee off." Böttcher (Proben, S. 289, note m) seeks to vindicate the rendering in the following paraphrase: "The ell at which thou shalt be cut off, like something woven or spun, when it has reached the destined number of ells." According to this view, "ell" would stand for the complete number of the ells determined on; but there is no consideration of the question whether בּצע, "to cut off the thread of life," Isa 38:12, can be applied to a city.

Verse 14

The Lord announces destruction to Babylon with a solemn oath. Many take כּי אם in the sense of אם לא in oaths: "truly, certainly." But this use of the expression is neither fully established, nor suitable in this connection. In 2Sa 15:21 (the only passage that can be cited in its behalf), the meaning "only" gives good enough sense. Ewald (§356, b) wrongly adduces 2Ki 5:20 in support of the above meaning, and three lines below he attributes the signification

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1823

"although" to the passage now before us. Moreover, the asseveration, "Verily I have filled thee with men as with locusts, and they shall sing the Hedad over thee," can have a suitable meaning only if we take "I have filled thee" prophetically, and understand the filling with men as referring to the enemy, when the city has been reduced (Hitzig). But to fill a city with men hardly means quite the same as to put a host of enemies in it. כּי serves merely to introduce the oath, and אם means "although," - as, for instance, in Job 9:15. The meaning is not, "When I filled thee with men, as with locusts, the only result was, that a more abundant wine-pressing could be obtained" (Nägelsbach), for this though is foreign to the context; the meaning rather is, "Even the countless multitudes of men in Babylon will not avail it" (Ewald), will not keep it from ruin. הידד, the song sung at the pressing of wine, is, from the nature of the case, the battle-song; see on Jer 25:30.

Verses 15-26

The omnipotence of the Lord and Creator of the whole world will destroy the idols of Babylon, and break the mighty kingdom that rules the world. Jer 51:15. "He who made the earth by His strength, establishing the world by His wisdom, and stretched out the heavens by His understanding; Jer 51:16. When, thundering, He makes a roaring sound of water in the heavens, He causes clouds to ascend from the end of the earth, makes lightnings for the rain, and brings forth the wind out of His treasures. Jer 51:17. Every man without knowledge is brutish; every goldsmith is ashamed because of the image: for his molten work is a lie, and there is no spirit in them. Jer 51:18. They are vanity, a work of mockery; in their time of visitation they perish. Jer 51:19. The Portion of Jacob is not like these; for He is the framer of all, and of the tribe of his inheritance: Jahveh of hosts is His name. Jer 51:20. Thou art a hammer to me, weapons of war; and with thee I will break nations in pieces, and with thee destroy kingdoms. Jer 51:21. And with thee I will break in pieces the horse and his rider, and with thee I will break in pieces the chariot and its rider. Jer 51:22. And with thee I will break in pieces man and woman, and with thee I will break in pieces old and young, and with thee I will break in pieces young man and maiden. Jer 51:23. And with thee I will break in pieces the shepherd and

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1824

his flock, and with thee I will break in pieces the husbandman and his yoke [of oxen], and with thee I will break in pieces governors and deputy-governors. Jer 51:24. And I will recompense to Babylon, and to all the inhabitants of Chaldea, all their evil which they have done in Zion before your eyes, saith Jahveh. Jer 51:25. Behold, I am against thee, O mountain of destruction, saith Jahve, that destroyed all the earth; and I will stretch out my hand against thee, and roll thee down from the rocks, and make thee a burnt mountain, Jer 51:26. So that they shall not take from thee a stone for a corner, or a stone for foundations; but thou shalt be desolations for ever, saith Jahveh."
In order to establish, against all doubt, the fall of Babylon that has been announced under solemn oath, Jeremiah, in Jer 51:15-19. repeats a passage from the address in Jer 10:12-16, in which he holds up before the people, by way of warning, the almighty power of the living God, and the destruction of the idols at the time of the judgment. In Jer 51:10 he wished, by means of this announcement, to combat the fears of the idolatrous people for the power of the heathen gods; here he seeks by the same means to destroy the confidence of the Chaldeans in their gods, and to state that all idols will be destroyed before the almighty power of the Creator and Ruler of the whole world on the day of judgment, and Israel shall then learn that He who formed the universe will show Himself, by the fall of Babylon, as the Creator of Israel. The whole passage is repeated verbatim, on till a change made in Jer 51:19, where ישׂראל is omitted before שׁבט נחלתו, and these words are connected with what precedes: "He is the former of all, and of the tribe which belongs to Him as His own property," i.e., Israel. This alteration is not to be put to the account of a copyist, who omitted the word "Israel" through an oversight, but is due to Jeremiah: there was no need here, as in Jer 10, for bringing into special prominence the relation of Israel to his God.^[29]
As to the rest, see

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1825

the exposition of Jer 10:12-16. In Jer 51:20-26 the destruction of Babylon and its power is further carried out in two figures. In Jer 51:20-24 Babylon is compared to a hammer, which God uses for the purpose of beating to pieces nations and kingdoms, with their forces and their inhabitants, but on which He will afterwards requite the evil done to Zion. מפּץ is equivalent to מפיץ ot tnelaviuqe si, Pro 25:18, one who breaks in pieces; hence a battle-hammer. Hitzig takes כּלי to be a singular, "formed thus in order to avoid an accumulation of i sounds (cf. פּליטים with פּליטי)." This is possible, but neither necessary nor probable. The plural, "weapons of war," is added, because the battle-hammer is considered as including all weapons of war. By the hammer, Ewald understands "the true Israel;" Hitzig, Cyrus, the destroyer of Babylon; Nägelsbach, an ideal person. These three views are based on the fact that the operation performed by means of the hammer (breaking to pieces) is marked by perfects with ו relative (ונפּצתּי), which is also true of the retribution to be made on Babylon: from this it is inferred that the breaking with the hammer, as well as the retribution, is still future, and that the meaning is, "When I hammer in this way with thee, I will requite Babylon" (Hitzig); while Ewald concludes from nothing but the context that the words refer to Israel.
But none of these reasons is decisive, nor any of the three views tenable. The context gives decided support to the opinion that in Jer 51:20. it is Babylon that is addressed, just as in Jer 51:13. and Jer 51:25; a further proof is, that as early as Jer 50:23, Babylon is called "the hammer of the whole earth." Only very weighty reasons, then, could induce us to refer the same figure, as used here, to another nation. The word פּטּישׁ (Jer 50:23), "hammer, smith's hammer" (Isa 41:7), is not essentially different from מפּץ, which is used here.

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1826

The figure is quite inapplicable to Israel, because "Israel is certainly to be delivered through the destruction of Babylon, but is not to be himself the instrument of the destruction" (Graf). Finally, the employment of the perfect with w relative, both in connection with the shattering to pieces which God accomplishes with (by means of) Babylon, and also the retribution He will execute on Babylon, is explained by the fact, that just as, in prophetic vision, what Babylon does to the nations, and what happens to it, was not separated into two acts, distinct from one another, but appeared as one continuous whole, so also the work of Babylon as the instrument of destruction was not yet finished, but had only begun, and still continuing, was partly future, like the retribution which it was to receive for its offence against Zion; just as in Jer 51:13 Babylon is viewed as then still in the active exercise of its power; and the purpose for which God employs it, as well as the fate that is to befall it, is presented together in something like this manner: "O Babylon, who art my hammer with which I break peoples and kingdoms in pieces, thee will I requite!" There is separate mention made of the instances of breaking, in a long enumeration, which becomes tedious through the constant repetition of the verb - something like the enumeration in Jer 50:35-38, where, however, the constant repetition of חרב gives great emphasis to the address. First comes the general designation, nations and kingdoms; then military forces; then (Jer 51:25) the inhabitants of the kingdoms, arranged, as in Eze 23:6, Eze 23:23, according to sex, age, and class, labouring classes (shepherds, and husbandmen with their cattle); and lastly dignitaries, satraps and lieutenant-governors, פּחות וּסגנים, as in Eze 23:6, Eze 23:23. פּחה probably comes from the Zendic pavan (root pa), of which a dialectic form is pagvan, "upholder of government;" see on Hag 1:1. סגן corresponds to the ζωγάνης of the Athenians, "lieutenant-governor;" but it is not much that has hitherto been ascertained with regard to this office; see Delitzsch on Isa 41:25 Clark's translation. On 'ושׁלּמתּי וגו, cf. Jer 51:6 and Jer 50:15, Jer 50:29; "before your eyes," towards the end of this verse, belongs to this verb in the main clause.
This retribution is set forth in Jer 51:25. under a new figure. Babylon is called the "mountain of destruction;" this name is immediately

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1827

explained by the predicate, "that destroys the whole earth," brings destruction on it. The name הר המשׁחית is applied in 2Ki 23:13 to the Mount of Olives, or its southern summit, the so-called mons offensionis vel scandali of ecclesiastical tradition, on which Solomon had erected idolatrous altars for his foreign wives; the name refers to the pernicious influence thereby exercised on the religious life of Israel. In this verse, "destruction" is used in a comprehensive sense of the physical and moral ruin which Babylon brought on the nations. Babylon is a "mountain," as being a powerful kingdom, supereminent above others; whether there is also a reference in the title to its lofty buildings (C. B. Michaelis) seems doubtful. "I will roll thee down from the rocks," de petris, in quarum fastigiis hucusque eminuisti. Non efferes te amplius super alia regna (C. B. Mich.). To this Hitzig adds, by way of explanation: "The summit of the mountain is sometimes changed into the very position occupied by the crater." From what follows, "I will make thee a mountain of burning," i.e., either a burning, or burnt, burnt-out mountain, modern expositors infer, with J. D. Michaelis, that the prophet has before his mind a volcano in active eruption, "for no other kind of mountains could devastate countries; it is just volcanoes which have been hollowed out by fire that fall in, or, it may be, tumble down into the valley below, scattering their constituent elements here and there; the stones of such mountains, too, are commonly so much broken and burnt, that they are of no use for building" (Hitzig). Of the above remarks this much is correct, that the words, "I will make thee a burning mountain," are founded on the conception of a volcano; any more extended application, however, of the figure to the whole verse is unwarranted. The clause, "I will roll thee down from the rocks," cannot possibly be applied to the action of a volcano in eruption (though Nägelsbach does so apply it), unless we are ready to impute to the prophet a false notion regarding the eruptions of volcanoes. By the eruption, a mountain is not loosened from the rock on which it rests, and hurled down into the valleys round about; it is only the heart of the mountain, or the rocks on which its summit rests, that seem to be vomited out of it. Besides, the notion that there is a representation of

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1828

an active volcano in the first clauses of the verse, is disproved by the very fact that the mountain, Babylon, does not bring ruin on the earth, as one that is burning; it is not to become such until after it has been rolled down from the rocks on which it rests. The laying waste of the countries is not ascribed to the fire that issues from the mountain, but the mountain begins to burn only after it has been rolled down from its rocks. Babylon, as a kingdom and city, is called a mountain, because it mightily surpassed and held sway over them; cf. Isa 2:14. It brings ruin on the whole earth by subjugation of the nations and devastation of the countries. The mountain rests on rocks, i.e., its power has a foundation as firm as a rock, until the Lord rolls it down from its height, and burns the strong mountain, making it like an extinct volcano, the stones of which, having been rendered vitreous by the fire, no longer furnish material that can be employed for the foundation of new buildings. "A corner-stone," etc., is explained by C. B. Michaelis, after the Chaldee, Kimchi, and others, to mean, "no one will appoint a king or a prince any more out of the stock of the Chaldeans." This is against the context, according to which the point treated of is, not the fall of the kingdom in or of Babylon, but the destruction of Babylon as a city and kingdom. Hitzig and Graf, accordingly, take the meaning to be this: Not a stone of the city will be used for a new building - no one will any more build for himself among their ruins, and out of the material there. The corner-stone and the foundation (it is further asserted) are mentioned by way of example, not because particularly large and good stones are needed for these parts, but because every house begins with them. But though the following clause, "thou shalt be an everlasting desolation," contains this idea, yet this interpretation neither exhausts nor gives a generally correct view of the meaning of the words, "no one will take from thee a corner-stone or a foundation-stone." The burning of the mountain signifies not merely that Babylon was to be burned to ashes, but that her sway over the world was to be quite at an end; this was only to come about when the city was burnt. When no stone of any value for a new building is to be left after this conflagration, this is equivalent to saying that nothing will be left of the empire that has been destroyed,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1829

which would be of any use in the foundation of another state. The last clause also ("for thou shalt be," etc.) refers to more than the destruction of the city of Babylon. This is seen even in the fundamental passage, Jer 25:12, where the same threat is uttered against the land of the Chaldeans.

Verses 27-28

A summons addressed to the nations to fight against Babylon, in order that, by reducing the city, vengeance may be taken for the offence committed against Israel by Babylon. Jer 51:27. "Lift up a standard on the earth, sound a trumpet among the nations, prepare the nations against her, call the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz against her; appoint troops against her; bring up horses lie horrid locusts. Jer 51:28. Prepare nations against her, the kings of the Medes and her governors, and all her lieutenant-governors, and all the land of his dominion. Jer 51:29. Then the earth quakes and trembles: for the purposes of Jahveh against Babylon are being performed, to make the land of Babylon a desolation, without an inhabitant. Jer 51:30. The heroes of Babylon have ceased to fight, they sit in the strongholds: their strength is dried up; they have become women; they have set her habitations on fire; her bars are broken. Jer 51:31. One runner runs against another, and one messenger against another, to tell the king of Babylon that his city is wholly taken. Jer 51:32. And the crossing-places have been seized, and the marches have they burned up with fire, and the men of war are confounded. Jer 51:33. For thus saith Jahveh of hosts, the God of Israel: The daughter of Babylon is like a threshing-floor at the time when it is trodden; yet a little, and the time of harvest will come to her. Jer 51:34. Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon hath devoured us, and ground us down; he hath set us down [like] an empty vessel, he hath swallowed us like a dragon, he hath filled his belly with my dainties; he hath thrust me out. Jer 51:35. Let the inhabitress of Zion say, 'My wrong and my flesh [be] upon Babylon;' and let Jerusalem say, 'My blood be upon the inhabitants of Chaldea.' Jer 51:36. Therefore thus saith Jahveh: Behold, I will plead thy cause, and execute vengeance for thee; ad I will dry up her sea, and make her fountain dry. Jer 51:37. And Babylon shall become heaps [of ruins], a dwelling-place'

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1830

'of dragons, an astonishment, and a hissing, without an inhabitant."
The lifting up of the standard (Jer 51:27) serves as a signal for the nations to assemble for the struggle against Babylon. בּארץ does not mean "in the land," but, as the parallel "among the nations" shows, "on the earth." קדּשׁוּ, "consecrate prepare against her (Babylon) nations" for the war; cf. Jer 6:4; Jer 22:7. השׁמיעוּ, as in Jer 50:29. The kingdoms summoned are: Ararat, i.e., the middle (or eastern) province of Armenia, in the plain of Araxes, which Moses of Chorene calls Arairad, Araratia (see on Gen 8:4); Minni, which, according to the Syriac and Chaldee, is also a name of Armenia, probably its western province (see Gesenius' Thesaurus, p. 807); and Ashkenaz, which the Jews take to be Germany, although only this much is certain, that it is a province in the neighbourhood of Armenia. For Askên is an Armenian proper name, and az an Armenian termination; cf. Lagarde's Gesammelte Abhandll. S. 254, and Delitzsch on Gen 10:3, Gen 10:4 ed. פּקדוּ, "appoint, order against her." טפסר does not mean "captains" or leaders, for this meaning of the foreign word (supposed to be Assyrian) rests on a very uncertain etymology; it means some peculiar kind of troops, but nothing more definite can be affirmed regarding it. This meaning is required by the context both here and in Nah 3:17, the only other place where the word occurs: see on that passage. The sing. טפסר corresponds with the sing. סוּס, and is therefore to be taken collectively, "troops and horses." Whether the simile כּילק ס belongs merely to "horses," or to the combination "troops and horses," depends on the meaning attached to the expression. Modern expositors render it "bristly locusts;" and by that they understand, like Credner (Joel, S. 298), the young grasshopper after it has laid aside its third skin, when the wings are still enveloped in rough horny sheaths, and stick straight up from the back of the animal. But this explanation rests on an erroneous interpretation of Nah 3:17. סמר means to shudder, and is used of the shivering or quivering of the body (Psa 119:120), and of the hair (Job 4:15); and ילק does not mean a particular kind of locusts, through Jerome, on Nah 3:17, renders it attelabus (parva locusta est inter locustam et bruchum, et modicis pennis

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1831

reptans potius quam volans, semperque subsiliens), but is a poetic epithet of the locust, "the devourer." If any one prefers to view סמר as referring to the nature of the locusts, he may with Bochart and Rosenmüller, think of the locustarum species, quae habet caput hirsutum. But the epithet "horrid" is probably intended merely to point out the locusts as a fearful scourge of the country. On this view, the comparison refers to both clauses, and is meant to set forth not merely the enormous multitude of the soldiery, but also the devastation they make of the country. In Jer 51:28 mention is further made of the kings of the Medes (see on Jer 51:11), together with their governors and lieutenant-governors (see on Jer 51:23), and, in order to give prominence to the immense strength of the army, of "all the land of his dominion;" on these expressions, cf. Jer 34:1 and 1Ki 9:19. The suffix refers to the king of Media, as the leader of the whole army; while those in "her governors, and all her lieutenant-governors," refer to the country of Media.

Verses 29-31

On the advance of this mighty host against Babylon, to execute the judgment determined by the Lord, the earth quakes. The mighty men of Babylon cease to offer resistance, and withdraw dispirited, like women, into inaccessible places, while the enemy sets fire to the houses, breaks the bars, and captures the city. The prophet views all this in spirit as already present, and depicts in lively colours the attack on the city and its capture. Hence the historic tenses, ותּרעשׁ, ותּחל, חדלוּ, etc. קמה is used of the permanence, i.e., of the realization of the divine counsels, as in Jer 44:23. On the singular, see Ewald, §317, a. "To make the land," etc., as in Jer 4:7; Jer 18:16, etc. "They sit (have taken up their position) in the strongholds" (Mountain fastnesses), i.e., in inaccessible places; cf. 1Sa 13:16; 2Sa 23:14. נשׁתה is but to be regarded as a Kal form from נשׁת; on its derivation from שׁתת, see on Isa 41:17. "They have become women;" cf. Jer 50:37. The subject of the verb הצּיעתוּ is the enemy, who set fire to the dwellings in Babylon. "Runner runs against runner," i.e., from opposite sides of the city there come messengers, who meet each other running to tell the king in his castle that the city is taken. The king is therefore (as Graf correctly remarks against Hitzig) not to be thought of as living outside of the city, for

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1832

"in this case לקראת would have no meaning," but as living in the royal castle, which was situated in the middle of the city, on the Euphrates. Inasmuch as the city is taken "from the end" (מקּצה), i.e., on all sides, the messengers who bring the news to the king's fortress must meet each other.

Verses 32-33

Permits of being taken as a continuation of the message brought to the king. מעבּרות, "crossing-places," do not here mean "fords" (Jdg 3:28); for such shallow places, where one could go through the river, are not to be found in the Euphrates. at Babylon: they mean bridges and ferries, because, in addition to the stone bridge built by Nebuchadnezzar (Herodotus, i. 186; see Duncker's Geschichte, i. S. 859), there must also have been at Babylon, throughout its large extent, other means of crossing, either by bridges of boats or ferries. נתפּשׁוּ, "they have been taken," seized by the enemy; cf. Jer 48:41. אגמּים are ponds and artificial lakes which had been formed for the protection of the city, of the waters of the Euphrates (Herodotus, i. 185; Arrian. Jer 7:17); these "they have burned with fire." Inasmuch as a burning of ponds is an impossibility, many, with Kimchi, would understand אגמים of the reeds of the marshes. But the word has no such meaning; moreover, even if it had, the burning of the reeds would have no significance for the taking of the city. Others think of the sluices and the enclosures of the artificial waters, which enclosures were constructed of wood-work; but apart from the basin of water at Sepharvaim, which could be opened by sluices, the enclosure of the ponds with wood-work is a matter of much doubt, and a burning of the wood-work is not a burning of the ponds. The expression, as Calvin long ago remarked, is hyperbolic, and not to be pressed: Propheta hyperbolice ostendit, siccata fuisse vada Euphratis ac si quis lignum exureret igni supposito; hoc quidem aquis non convenit, sed hyperbolice melius exprimit miraculum. On the whole, the picture is not to be taken as a description of the historical circumstances connected with the taking of Babylon by Cyrus; neither, therefore, is the burning of the ponds to be referred to the fact that the bed of the Euphrates was made dry through diversion of the stream (Herodotus, i. 191); but we have here a poetic colouring given to the thought that all Babylon's means of offence and defence

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1833

will fall into the power of the enemy and be destroyed by them. For (according to the reason assigned in Jer 51:33 for what has been described) the Almighty God of Israel has decreed the destruction of Babylon. "The daughter of Babylon (i.e., not merely the city, but the kingdom of Babylon) is like a threshing-floor at the time when they tread it," i.e., stamp on it, make the ground into a threshing-floor by treading it hard.^[30] הדריכהּ might be the infinitive (Ewald, §238, d): it is simpler, however, to take it as a perfect, and supply the relative אשׁר. The meaning is, that Babylon is ripe for judgment. עוד מעט, "yet a little while" (i.e., soon), comes the time of harvest, so that the grain will be threshed, i.e., the judgment will be executed. The figure reminds us of Isa 21:10, cf. Joe 3:13, Mic 4:13, etc.

Verses 34-37

This judgment comes on Babylon for its offences against Israel. The king of Babylon has devoured Israel, etc. Those who complain, in Jer 51:34, are the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem, in whose name the prophet enumerates the crimes of Babylon. "Nebuchadnezzar has devoured us," i.e., oppressed us. The plural suffixes to the verbs have been needlessly changed in the Qeri into singulars, for the simple reason, perhaps, that with מעדני and in Jer 51:35 the address makes a transition into the singular. המם signifies to throw enemies into confusion by causing a panic, for the purpose of destroying them; hence to destroy, see on Deu 2:15; here to destroy, crush. "He set us down like an empty vessel" refers to the country and the people; he has swept the country of human beings, and robbed the people of everything. תּנּין, usually a sea-monster, crocodile (Isa 27:1; Isa 51:9, etc.); here a beast of prey which devours everything. מעדנים, "delights," then "dainty meats," Gen 49:20.^[31] הדיח, from דּוּח, signifies to wash away, push away (see Delitzsch on Isa 4:4); in other

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1834

places Jeremiah uses הדּיח, Jer 8:3; Jer 16:15, etc. "Let my wrong (i.e., the wrong done me) come upon Babylon." This wrong is more fully specified, with reference to the figure of swallowing, by "my flesh and blood;" cf. Mic 3:3. The Lord will avenge this wrong, Jer 51:36, cf. Jer 50:34; Jer 51:6, Jer 51:11; He will also dry up the sea of Babylon, and make her spring dry up. Many expositors understand these latter words metaphorically, as referring to the sea of nations surging in Babylon (Jer 51:42, Jer 51:55), and view the treasures and riches as the fountain from which the sea of nations sprang up (Hitzig); but the context demands a literal interpretation, inasmuch as in Jer 51:37 the subject treated of is the laying waste of the country. The sea of Babylon is the Euphrates, with its canals, lakes, and marshes, i.e., the abundance of water to which Babylonia owed its fertility, and the city its influence as the centre of the then known world. Isaiah (Isa 21:1) accordingly calls Babylon, emblematically, the desert of the sea, inasmuch as the region in which Babylon stands is a plain, broken in such a manner by the Euphrates, as well as by marshes and lakes, as that the city, so to speak, swims in the sea (Delitzsch). The source of spring of the sea is the Euphrates, and the drying up of this spring is not to be understood literally of the drying up of the Euphrates, but signifies a drying up of the springs of water that fertilize the country. On the figures employed in Jer 51:37, cf. Jer 9:10; Jer 18:16; Jer 49:33.

Verses 38-40

The inhabitants of Babylon fall; the city perishes with its idols, to the joy of the whole world. - Jer 51:38. "Together they roar like young lions, they growl like the whelps of lionesses. Jer 51:39. When they are heated, I will prepare their banquets, and will make them drunk, that they may exult and sleep an eternal sleep, and not awake, saith Jahveh. Jer 51:40. I will bring them down like lambs to be slaughtered, like rams with he-goats. Jer 51:41. How is Sheshach taken, and the praise of the whole earth seized! How Babylon is become an astonishment among the nations! Jer 51:42. The sea has gone up over Babylon: she is covered with the multitude of its waves. Jer 51:43. Her cities have become a desolation, a land of drought, and a steppe, a land wherein no man dwells, and through which no son of man passes. Jer 51:44.

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1835

And I will punish Bel in Babylon, and will bring out of his mouth what he has swallowed, and no longer shall nations go in streams to him: the wall of Babylon also shall fall. Jer 51:45. Go ye out from the midst of her, my people! and save ye each one his life from the burning of the wrath of Jahveh. Jer 51:46. And lest your heart be weak, and ye be afraid because of the report which is heard in the land, and there comes the [= this] report in the [= this] year, and afterwards in the [= that] year the [= that] report, and violence, in the land, ruler against ruler. Jer 51:47. Therefore, behold, days are coming when I will punish the graven images of Babylon; and her whole land shall dry up,^[32]and all her slain ones shall fall in her midst. Jer 51:48. And heaven and earth, and all that is in them, shall sing for joy over Babylon: for the destroyers shall come to her from the north, saith Jahveh. Jer 51:49. As Babylon sought that slain ones of Israel should fall, so there fall, in behalf of Babylon, slain ones of the whole earth."
This avenging judgment shall come on the inhabitants of Babylon in the midst of their revelry. Jer 51:38. They roar and growl like young lions over their prey; cf. Jer 2:15; Amo 3:4. When, in their revelries, they will be heated over their prey, the Lord will prepare for them a banquet by which they shall become intoxicated, so that they sink down, exulting (i.e., staggering while they shout), into an eternal sleep of death. חמּם, "their heat," or heating, is the glow felt in gluttony and revelry, cf. Hos 7:4., not specially the result or effect of a drinking-bout; and the idea is not that, when they become heated through a banquet, then the Lord will prepare another one for them, but merely this, that in the midst of their revelry the Lord will prepare for them the meal they deserve, viz., give them the cup of wrath to drink, so that they may fall down intoxicated into eternal sleep, from which they no more awake. These words are certainly not a special prediction of the fact mentioned by Herodotus (i. 191) and Xenophon (Cyrop. vii. 23), that Cyrus took Babylon while the Babylonians were celebrating a feast and holding a banquet; they are merely a figurative dress given to the thought that the inhabitants of Babylon will be surprised by the judgment of death

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1836

in the midst of their riotous enjoyment of the riches and treasure taken as spoil from the nations. In that fact, however, this utterance has received a fulfilment which manifestly confirms the infallibility of the word of God. In Jer 51:40, what has been said is confirmed by another figure; cf. Jer 48:5 and Jer 50:27. Lambs, rams, goats, are emblems of all the classes of the people of Israel; cf. Isa 34:6; Eze 39:18.

Verse 41

The fearful destruction of Babylon will astonish the world. - Jer 51:41 is an exclamation of astonishment regarding the conquest of the city which was praised throughout the world. As to שׁשׁך, see on Jer 51:1 and Jer 25:26. תּהלּה, "praise," is here used for "a subject of praise and fame;" cf. Jer 49:25.

Verses 42-43

Description of the fall. The sea that has come over Babylon and covered it with its waves, was taken figuratively, even by the Chaldee paraphrasts, and understood as meaning the hostile army that overwhelms the land with its hosts. Only J. D. Michaelis was inclined to take the words in their proper meaning, and understood them as referring to the inundation of Babylon by the Euphrates in August and in winter. But however true it may be, that, in consequence of the destruction or decay of the great river-walls built by Nebuchadnezzar, the Euphrates may inundate the city of Babylon when it wells into a flood, yet the literal acceptation of the words is unwarranted, for the simple reason that they do not speak of any momentary or temporary inundation, and that, because Babylon is to be covered with water, the cities of Babylonia are to become an arid steppe. The sea is therefore the sea of nations, cf. Jer 46:7; the description reminds us of the destruction of Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea. On Jer 51:43, cf. Jer 48:9; Jer 49:18, Jer 49:33., Jer 50:12. The suffix in בּהן refers to "her cities;" but the repetition of ארץ is not for that reason wrong, as Graf thinks, but is to be explained on the ground that the cities of Babylonia are compared to a barren land; and the idea is properly this: The cities become an arid country of steppes, a land in whose cities nobody can dwell.

Verse 44

With the conquest of Babylon, Bel, the chief deity of the Babylonians (see on Jer 50:2), is punished; and not only is his prey torn from him, but his fame also, which attracted the nations, is destroyed. Under the prey which Bel has swallowed, and

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1837

which is to be torn out of his mouth, we must include not merely the sacred vessels which had been deposited in the temple of Belus (Dan 1:3), and the voluntary offerings presented him (Hitzig), but all the property which Babylon had taken as spoil from the nations; and the nations themselves, with life and property, Babylon has swallowed (see 34 and Jer 50:17). All this is now to be torn out of his jaws. Bel falls with the fall of Babylon (cf. Isa 46:1), so that nations no longer come in streams to him, to dedicate their goods and treasures to him. The description ends with the sentence, "the wall of Babylon also is fallen," which Hitzig and Graf wrongly suspect, on the ground that it is insipid. Ewald, on the contrary, perceives in the very same expression a brief and emphatic conclusion; because the famous wall of Babylon, strong in every part, was the main defence of this great city of the world. For explaining this sentence, therefore, it is unnecessary to assume that the walls of Babylon seem to have been regarded as sacred to Bel, as Nägelsbach is inclined to infer from the names which are said to be given to these walls in an inscription translated by Oppert.^[33]

Verse 45

Since Babylon will be punished by the Lord with destruction, the people of God are to flee out of it, and to preserve their lives from the fierce anger of Jahveh, which will discharge itself on Babylon. חרון אף, as in Jer 4:8, Jer 4:26, etc.

Verse 46

Yet they are not to despair when the catastrophe draws near, and all kinds of rumours of war and oppression are abroad. The repetition of השּׁמוּעה expresses the correlative relation, - this and that report; cf. Ewald, §360, c. The suffix in אחריו has a neuter sense; the word means "afterwards" (= אחרי זאת, Job 42:16). וחמס בּארץ is also to be taken as dependent, grammatically, on וּבא: "and when a deed of violence is committed in the land, one ruler (rises up) against the other." These words

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1838

presuppose not merely a pretty long duration of the war, but also rebellion and revolution, through which Babylon is to go to ruin. In this sense they are employed by Christ for describing the wars and risings that are to precede His advent; Mat 24:6; Mar 13:7; Luk 21:9.

Verse 47

Therefore, viz., because what has been stated above will happen, or because the events mentioned in Jer 51:46 are harbingers of the judgment on Babylon, - therefore days are coming when God shall execute judgment on the idols of Babylon, and dry up the land^[34] (cf. Jer 51:43), and all her slain ones, i.e., all her inhabitants shall fall down, slain in the midst of her. לכן הנּה ימים בּאים, "Therefore, behold, days are coming," is a formula very frequently found in Jeremiah; cf. Jer 7:32; Jer 16:14; Jer 19:6; Jer 23:7, etc.

Verses 48-49

Heaven and earth, with all that is in them (i.e., the whole world, with its animate and inanimate creatures), break out into rejoicing over the fall of Babylon (cf. Isa 44:23), for Babylon has enslaved and laid waste all the world. The second part of Jer 51:48, "for the destroyers shall come from the north," is logically connected with Jer 51:47, to which Jer 51:48 is to be taken as subordinate, in the sense, "over which heaven and earth rejoice." On Jer 51:48, cf. Jer 50:3, Jer 50:9,Jer 50:41. Both parts of Jer 51:49 are placed in mutual relation by גּם־גּם. These two particles, thus used, signify "as well as," "not only...but also," or "as...so." Ewald, Hitzig, and Graf have quite missed the meaning of both clauses, since they take חללי ישׂראל as a vocative, and render the whole thus: "Not only must Babylon fall, O ye slain ones of Israel, but slain ones of the whole earth have fallen on the side of Babylon (or through Babylon)." This view of the expression "slain ones of Israel" cannot be established, either from grammatical considerations or from a regard to the meaning of the whole. Not only is there no occasion for a direct address to the slain ones of Israel; but by such a view of the expression, the antithesis indicated by גּמרררגּם, between "the slain ones of Israel" and "the slain ones of the earth," is thereby destroyed. Viewed grammatically,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1839

"the slain ones of Israel" can only be the subject dependent on the inf. לנפּל: "the fall of the slain ones of Israel." Kimchi has long ago hit the meaning in the explanation, גּם בּבל היתה סבּת לנפּל, "as Babylon was the cause of the slain ones of Israel falling." Similarly Jerome: et quomodo fecit Babylon ut caderent occisi ex Israel. This paraphrase may be vindicated on grammatical grounds, for the inf. constr. with ל, with or without היה, is used to express that on which one is engaged, or what one is on the point of doing; cf. Gesenius, §132, 3, Rem. 1. In this meaning, לנפּל stands here without היה: "Just as Babylon was concerned in making the slain ones of Israel fall;" or better: "Just as Babylon was intent on the fall of slain ones in Israel, so also there fall because of Babylon (prop. dative, for Babylon) slain ones of all the earth;" because there are to be found, in the capital of the empire, people from all quarters of the world, who are slain when Babylon is conquered. The perf. נפלוּ is prophetic, like פּקדתּי in Jer 51:47.

Verses 50-52

Final summing up of the offence and the punishment of Babylon. Jer 51:50. "Ye who have escaped the sword, depart, do not stay! remember Jahveh from afar, and let Jerusalem come into your mind. Jer 51:51. We were ashamed, because we heard reproach; shame hath covered our face, for strangers have come into the holy places of the house of Jahveh. Jer 51:52. Therefore, behold, days are coming, saith Jahveh, when I will take vengeance on her graven images; and through all her land shall the wounded groan. Jer 51:53. Though Babylon ascended to heaven, and fortified the height of her strength, yet from me there shall come destroyers to her, saith Jahveh. Jer 51:54. The noise of a cry [comes] from Babylon, and great destruction from the land of the Chaldeans. Jer 51:55. For Jahveh lays waste Babylon, and destroys out of her the great noise; and her waves sound like many waters: a noise of their voice is uttered. Jer 51:56. For there comes against her, against Babylon, a destroyer, and her heroes are taken; each one of their bows is broken: for Jahveh is a God of retributions, He shall certainly recompense. Jer 51:57. And I will make drunk her princes and her wise men, her governors and her lieutenant-governors, and her heroes, so that they shall sleep an eternal sleep, and not awake, saith the King, whose

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1840

name is Jahveh of hosts. Jer 51:58. Thus saith Jahveh of hosts: The broad walls of Babylon shall be utterly destroyed, and her high gates shall be burned with fire, so that nations toil for nothing, and peoples for the fire, and thus are weary."
Once more there is addressed to Israel the call to return immediately; cf. Jer 51:45 and Jer 50:8. The designation, "those who have escaped from the sword," is occasioned by the mention in Jer 51:49 of those who are slain: it is not to be explained (with Nägelsbach) from the circumstance that the prophet sees before him the massacre of the Babylonians as something that has already taken place. This view of the matter agrees neither with what precedes nor what follows, where the punishment of Babylon is set forth as yet to come. It is those who have escaped from the sword of Babylon during the exercise of its sway that are meant, not those who remain, spared in the conquest of Babylon. They are to go, not to stand or linger on the road, lest they be overtaken, with others, by the judgment falling upon Babylon; they are also to remember, from afar, Jahveh the faithful covenant God, and Jerusalem, that they may hasten their return. הלכוּ is a form of the imperative from הלך; it occurs only here, and has probably been chosen instead of לכוּ, because this form, in the actual use of language, had gradually lost its full meaning, and become softened down to a mere interjection, while emphasis is here placed on the going. After the call there follows, in Jer 51:51, the complaint, "We have lived to see the dishonour caused by the desecration of our sanctuary." This complaint does not permit of being taken as an answer or objection on the part of those who are summoned to return, somewhat in this spirit: "What is the good of our remembering Jahveh and Jerusalem? Truly we have thence a remembrance only of the deepest shame and dishonour" (Nägelsbach). Such an objection the prophet certainly would have answered with a reproof for the want of weakness of faith. Ewald accordingly takes Jer 51:51 as containing "a confession which the exiles make in tears, and filled with shame, regarding the previous state of dishonour in which they themselves, as well as the holy place, have been." On this view, those who are exhorted to return encourage themselves by this

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1841

confession and prayer to zeal in returning; and it would be necessary to supply dicite before Jer 51:51, and to take בּשׁנוּ as meaning, "We are ashamed because we have heard scoffing, and because enemies have come into the holy places of Jahveh's house." But they might have felt no shame on account of this dishonour that befell them. בּושׁ signifies merely to be ashamed in consequence of the frustration of some hope, not the shame of repentance felt on doing wrong. Hence, with Calvin and others, we must take the words of Jer 51:51 as a scruple which the prophet expresses in the name of the people against the summons to remember Jahveh and Jerusalem, that he may remove the objection. The meaning is thus something like the following: "We may say, indeed, that disgrace has been imposed on us, for we have experienced insult and dishonour; but in return for this, Babylon will now be laid waste and destroyed." The plural המּקדּשׁים denotes the different holy places of the temple, as in Ps. 68:36. The answer which settles this objection is introduced, Jer 51:52, by the formula, "Therefore, behold, days are coming," which connects itself with the contents of Jer 51:51 : "Therefore, because we were obliged to listen to scoffing, and barbarians have forced their way into the holy places of the house of our God, - therefore will Jahveh punish Babylon for these crimes," The suffixes in פּסיליה and ארצהּ refer to Babylon. חלל is used in undefined generality, "slain, pierced through."

Verse 53

Babylon shall by no means escape punishment. Even though it mounted up to heaven (cf. Job 20:6; there may, at the same time, be an allusion to Isa 14:12, and possibly also to the tower at Babylon), and תּבצּר, "cut off (i.e., made inaccessible) the height of its strength," i.e., the height in which its strength consists, its lofty wall of defence (probably an allusion to the lofty walls of Babylon; see on Jer 51:58), yet destroyers are to come against it from Jahveh.

Verses 54-57

The prophet in the spirit sees these destroyers as already come. A cry of anguish proceeds from Babylon, and great destruction; cf. Jer 50:22, Jer 50:46, and Jer 48:3. For (Jer 51:55) Jahveh lays waste Babylon, and destroys out of her קול גּדול, properly "the loud voice," i.e., the loud noise and bustle of the city. "Their waves," i.e., the surging masses of the conquering army, roar like many or great

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1842

waters; cf. Isa 17:12. נתּן , lit., "there is given" (i.e., there sounds) "the noise of their voice," i.e., of the roaring of their waves. "For there comes on Babylon a destroyer, so that her heroes are made prisoners, and her bows (by synecdoche for weapons) broken in pieces." The Piel חתּתה has here an intransitive sense, "to break or shiver into pieces," like פּתּח, Isa 48:8; Isa 60:11. This must take place, for Jahveh is a God of retribution; cf. Jer 51:24. This retribution He will execute in such a way as to make the princes, wise men, rulers, and heroes of Babylon sink down into an eternal sleep, by presenting to them the cup of wrath. On השׁכּרתּי and וישׁנוּ, cf. Jer 51:39. On the enumeration of the different classes of leaders and supporters of the state, cf. Jer 51:23 and Jer 50:35; and on the designation of Jahveh as King, Jer 48:15, with the remark there made.

Verse 58

And not only are the defenders of the city to fall, but the strong ramparts also, the broad walls and the lofty towers, are to be destroyed. The adjective הרחבה is joined in the singular with the plural חמות, because the complex notion of the walls of Babylon, denoted by the latter word, is viewed as a unity; cf. Ewald, §318. ערר, in Hithpael, means "to be made bare," i.e., to be destroyed down to the ground; the inf. abs. Pilel is added to intensify the expression. Regarding the height and breadth and the extent of the walls of Babylon, cf. the collection of notices by the old writers in Duncker's Gesch. des Alt. i. S. 856ff. According to Herodotus (i. 178f.), they were fifty ells "royal cubits," or nearly 85 feet thick, and 200 ells 337 1/2 feet high; Ctesias assigns them a height of 300 feet, Strabo that of 50 ells cubits, or 75 feet, and a breadth of 32 feet. On this Duncker remarks: "The height and breadth which Herodotus gives to the walls are no doubt exaggerated. Since the wall of Media, the first line of defence for the country, had a height of 100 feet and a breadth of 20 feet, and since Xenophon saw in Nineveh walls 150 feet in height, we shall be able with some degree of certainty to assume, in accordance with the statement of Pliny (vi. 26), that the wall of Babylon must have had a height of 200 feet above the ditch, and a proportionate breadth of from 30 to 40 feet. This breadth would be sufficient to permit of teams of four being driven along the rampart, between the

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1843

battlements, as Herodotus and Strabo inform us, without touching, just as the rampart on the walls of Nineveh is said to have afforded room for three chariots."^[35]
The gates leading into the city were, according to Herodotus, l.c., provided with beautifully ornamented gateways; the posts, the two leaves of the gates, and the thresholds, were of bronze. The prophecy concludes, Jer 51:58, with some words from Hab 2:13, which are to be verified by the destruction of Babylon, viz., that the nations which have built Babylon, and made it great, have laboured in vain, and only wearied themselves. Habakkuk probably does not give this truth as a quotation from an older prophet, but rather declares it as an ordinance of God, that those who build cities with blood, and strongholds with unrighteousness, make nations toil to supply food for fire. Jeremiah has made use of the passage as a suitable conclusion to his prophecy, but made some unimportant alterations; for he has transposed the words בּדי אשׁ and בּדי ריק, and changed יעפוּ into ויעפוּ, that he may conclude his address with greater emphasis. For, according to the arrangement here, וּלאמּים בּדי־אשׁ still depends on ויגעוּ, and ויעפוּ indicates the result of this toil for the enslaved nations, - they only weary themselves thereby. The genuineness of this reading is put beyond a doubt by the repetition of ויעפוּ at the close of the epilogue in Jer 51:64.

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1844

What Habakkuk said generally of the undertakings of the Chaldeans, Jeremiah applied specially to the fall of the city of Babylon, because it was to exhibit its fulfilment most plainly in that event.

Verses 59-64

Jer 51:59-64Epilogue. - Jer 51:59. "The word which Jeremiah the prophet commanded Seraiah the son of Nerijah, the son of Maaseiah, when he went with Zedekiah the king of Judah to Babylon, in the fourth year of his reign. Now Seraiah was 'quartermaster-general'" (Ger. Reisemarschall).^[36]
Seraiah the son of Nerijah was, no doubt, a brother of Baruch the son of Nerijah; cf. Jer 32:12. שׂר מנוּחה does not mean "a peaceful prince" (Luther), "a quiet prince," English Version, but "prince of the resting-place" (cf. Num 10:33), i.e., the king's "quartermaster-general." What Jeremiah commanded Seraiah, or charged him with, does not follow till Jer 51:61; for the words of Jer 51:60, "And Jeremiah wrote in a book all the evil that was to come on Babylon, namely all these words which are written against Babylon" (in the preceding address, Jer 50 and 51), form a parenthetic remark, inserted for the purpose of explaining the charge that follows. This remark is attached to the circumstantial clause at the end of Jer 51:59, after which "the word which he commanded" is not resumed till Jer 51:61, with the words, "and Jeremiah spake to Seraiah;" and the charge itself is given in vv. 61b-64: "When thou comest to Babylon, then see to it, and read all these words, and say, O Jahveh, Thou hast spoken against this place, to destroy it, so that there shall be no inhabitant in it, neither man nor beast, but it shall be eternal desolations. And it shall be, when thou hast finished reading this book, that thou shalt bind a stone to it, and cast it into the midst of the Euphrates (v. 64), and say, Thus shall Babylon sink, and shall not rise again, because of the evil that I bring upon her; and they shall be weary." כּבאך בבל

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1845

does not mean, "when thou shalt have got near Babylon, so that thou beholdest the city lying in its full extent before thee" (Hitzig), but, according to the simple tenor of the words, "when thou shalt have come into the city." The former interpretation is based on the erroneous supposition that Seraiah had not been able to read the prophecy in the city, from fear of being called to account for this by the Babylonians. But it is nowhere stated that he was to read it publicly to the Babylonians themselves in an assembly of the people expressly convened for this purpose, but merely that he is to read it, and afterwards throw the book into the Euphrates. The reading was not intended to warn the Babylonians of the destruction threatened them, but was merely to be a proclamation of the word of the Lord against Babylon, on the very spot, for the purpose of connecting with it the symbolic action mentioned in v. 63f. וראית does not belong to כּבאך ("when thou comest to Babylon, and seest"), but introduces the apodosis, "then see to it, and read," i.e., keep it in your eye, in your mind, that you read (cf. Gen 20:10); not, "seek a good opportunity for reading" (Ewald). At the same time, Seraiah is to cry to God that He has said He will bring this evil on Babylon, i.e., as it were to remind God that the words of the prophecy are His own words, which He has to fulfil. On the contents of Jer 51:62, cf. Jer 50:3; Jer 51:26.
After the reading is finished, he is to bind the book to a stone, by means of which to sink it in the Euphrates, uttering the words explanatory of this action, "Thus shall Babylon sink," etc. This was to be done, not for the purpose of destroying the book (which certainly took place, but was not the object for which it was sunk), but in order to symbolize the fulfilment of the prophecy against Babylon. The attachment of the stone was not a precautionary measure to prevent the writing from being picked up somewhere, and thus bringing the writer or the people of the caravan into trouble (Hitzig), but was merely intended to make sure that the book would sink down into the depths of the Euphrates, and render it impossible that it should rise again to the surface, thus indicating by symbol that Babylon would not rise again. the words which Seraiah is to speak on throwing the book into the Euphrates, contain, in nuce, the

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1846

substance of the prophecy. The prophet makes this still more plain, by concluding the words he is likewise to utter with ויעפוּ as the last word of the prophecy. Luther has here well rendered יעף, "to weary," by "succumb" (erliegen). The Babylonians form the subject of יעפוּ.^[37]
The symbolic meaning of this act is clear; and from it, also, the meaning of the whole charge to the prophet is not difficult to perceive. The sending of the prophecy through Seraiah, with the command to read it there, at the same time looking up to God, and then to sink it in the Euphrates, was not intended as a testimony to the inhabitants of Babylon of the certainty of their destruction, but was meant to be a substantial proof for Israel that God the Lord would, without fail, fulfil His word regarding the seventy years' duration of Babylon's supremacy, and the fall of this great kingdom which was to ensue. This testimony received still greater significance from the circumstances under which it was given. The journey of King Zedekiah to Babylon was, at least in regard to its official purpose, an act of homage shown by Zedekiah to Nebuchadnezzar, as the vassal of the king of Babylon. This fact, which was deeply humiliating for Judah, was made use of by Jeremiah, in the name of the Lord, for the purpose of announcing and transmitting to Babylon, the city that ruled the world, the decree which Jahveh, the God of Israel, as King of heaven and earth, had formed concerning the proud city, and which He would execute in His own time,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1847

that He might confirm the hope of the godly ones among His people in the deliverance of Israel from Babylon.
The statement, "Thus far are the words of Jeremiah," is an addition made by the editor of the prophecies. From these words, it follows that Jer 52 does not belong to these prophecies, but forms a historical appendix to them.
Finally, if any question be asked regarding the fulfilment of the prophecy against Babylon, we must keep in mind these two points: 1. The prophecy, as is shown both by its title and its contents, is not merely directed against the city of Babylon, but also against the land of the Chaldeans. It therefore proclaims generally the devastation and destruction of the Chaldean kingdom, or the fall of the Babylonian empire; and the capture and destruction of Babylon, the capital, receive special prominence only in so far as the world-wide rule of Babylon fell with the capital, and the supremacy of the Chaldeans over the nations came to an end. 2. In addition to this historical side, the prophecy has an ideal background, which certainly is never very prominent, but nevertheless is always more or less to be discovered. Here Babylon, as the then mistress of the world, is the representative of the God-opposing influences on the earth, which always attempt to suppress and destroy the kingdom of God. The fulfilment of the historical side of this prophecy began with the capture of Babylon by the united forces of the Medes and Persians under the leadership of Cyrus, and with the dissolution of the Chaldean empire, brought about through that event. By this means, too, the people of Israel were delivered from the Babylonish captivity, while Cyrus gave them permission to return to their native land and rebuild the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem; 2Ch 36:22., Ezr 1:1. But Babylon was not destroyed when thus taken, and according to Herodotus, iii. 159, even the walls of the city remained uninjured, while, according to a notice of Berosus in Josephus, contra Ap. i. 19, Cyrus is said to have given orders for the pulling down of the outer wall. Cyrus appointed Babylon, after Susa and Ecbatana, the third city in the kingdom, and the winter residence of the Persian kings (according to Xenophon, Cyrop. viii. 6. 22). Darius Hystaspes, who was obliged to take the city a second time, in consequence

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1848

of its revolt in the year 518 b.c., was the first who caused the walls to be lowered in height; these were diminished to 50 ells royal cubits - about 85 feet, and the gates were torn away (Herodotus, iii. 158f.). Xerxes spoiled the city of the golden image of Belus (Herodot. i. 183), and caused the temple of Belus to be destroyed (Arrian, vii. 17. 2). Alexander the Great had intended not merely to rebuild the sanctuary of Belus, but also to make the city the capital of his empire; but he was prevented by his early death from carrying out this plan. The decay of Babylon properly began when Seleucus Nicator built Seleucia, ion the Tigris, only 300 stadia distant. "Babylon," says Pliny, vi. 30, "ad solitudinem rediit, exhausta vicinitate Seleuciae." And Strabo (born 60 b.c.) says that, even in his time, the city was a complete wilderness, to which he applies the utterance of a poet: ἐρημία μεγάλη ἐστὶν ἡ μεγάλη πόλις (xvi. l. 5). This decay was accelerated under the rule of the Parthians, so that, within a short time, only a small space within the walls was inhabited, while the rest was used as fields (Diodorus Siculus, ii. 9; Curtius, Ezr 1:4. 27). According to the statements of Jerome and Theodoret, there were still living at Babylon, centuries afterwards, a pretty considerable number of Jews; but Jerome (ad Jerem. 51) was informed by a Persian monk that these ruins stood in the midst of a hunting district of the Persian kings. The notices of later writers, especially of modern travellers, have been collected by Ritter, Erdkunde, xi. S. 865f.; and the latest investigations among the ruins are described in his Expédition scient. en Mésopotamie, i. pp. 135-254 (Paris, 1863).^[38]
John the evangelist has taken the ideal elements of this prophecy into his apocalyptic description of the great city of Babylon (Rev. 16ff.), whose fall is not to begin till the kingdom of God is completed in glory through the return of our Lord. Historical Account of the Capture and Destruction of Jerusalem, the Fate of Zedekiah and the People, and the Liberation of Jehoiachin from Imprisonment

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1849

By the closing formula, Jer 51:64, the contents of Jer 52 are separated from, and marked as an appendix to, the prophecies of Jeremiah; yet nothing is said regarding the author of this chapter. However, if we keep in mind the nature of its contents, then, from the very fact that it gives an account of the liberation of King Jehoiachin from prison, and of his elevation to royal honours, it necessarily follows that it cannot have been composed by Jeremiah, because the prophet can scarcely have lived till this occurred, which was less than 561 b.c. It must further be considered that the contents of this chapter also agree, almost word for word, with 2Ki 24:18 -25, 30; moreover, the introductory notice regarding Zedekiah's ascension of the throne, his age, and the character of his rule, given Jer 52:1-3, was unnecessary for the object of this appendix. The same holds true of the notice regarding the liberation of Jehoiachin from prison, at the close, Jer 52:31-34, which does not seem to stand in any close and intimate connection with the history of the destruction of Jerusalem and the fate of Zedekiah, while both of these events are closely connected with the plan and aim of the Books of Kings, and are written quite in their spirit. On these grounds, most expositors, both ancient and modern, assume that this historical appendix to the prophecies of Jeremiah has been derived from the Second Book of Kings. But weighty reasons oppose this assumption. (1.) The very fact that the name of the king of Babylon is throughout written Nebuchadrezzar makes it unlikely that the narrative was derived from 2Ki 24:18., because the name is there constantly written Nebuchadnezzar, - a form which also occurs in Jeremiah, though not often (see pp. 245f., note). (2.) This chapter contains notices which are not found in 2 Kings 24 and 25. Thus, it is stated, in Jer 52:10, the Nebuchadnezzar also caused all the princes of Judah to be executed at Riblah, and King Zedekiah,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1850

who had been carried to Babylon, to be put in prison till his death; in Jer 52:19-23 we find a whole series of special remarks as to the vessels of the temple and the ornaments of the brazen pillars, - observations which are not met with either in 2 Kings, or in the description of the building of the temple, 1 Kings 7. We further find, in Jer 52:28-30, a notice regarding three deportations of the people, giving the numbers, not roundly, but precisely, as they are nowhere else given in the historical books of the Old Testament, Were this statement the only additional detail given by this chapter, as compared with 2 Kings, one might perhaps suppose that it was an interpolation from another source, added to the rest of the account that has been derived from 2 Kings 24 and 25; but this opinion, which even in itself is not very probable, is excluded by the other additions found in Jer 52:10 and in 19-23. If the author of this chapter had been able to derive, and had actually derived, these additional particulars from a historical source, treating of the later times of the kingdom of Judah, which has not come down to us, and which contained more than our canonical books of Kings and Chronicles, he would no doubt have also found there the account of the three deportations, and taken it from that source. We must therefore assume that this chapter, and 2Ki 24:18 on to 2Ki 25:30, have both a common origin, in which the fall of the kingdom of Judah was more fully described than in the historical books of the canon; in this way, the remarkable coincidence, almost word for word, between the narrative portions which are common to the two extracts, is accounted for quite as easily as the differences that have just been mentioned. From a critical examination of the state of both texts now before us, no certain conclusions can be drawn regarding their mutual relation. The differences of this kind arise partly from errors and omissions by later copyists, partly also from the circumstance that the epitomizers have not throughout kept rigorously to the words of their source. Regarding the author of the original written document, we cannot even make any supposition that could pretend to anything like probability. Baruch, as the editor of the collection of Jeremiah's prophecies, may have made the extract from it which we find in this chapter. We have already, in

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1851

substance, given the exposition while treating of 2Ki 24:18., so that we may here content ourselves with briefly putting together the deviations of this text from the other, and explaining its peculiarities.

Chap. 52

Verses 1-11

Fate of King Zedekiah at the taking of Jerusalem; cf. 2Ki 24:18; 2Ki 25:7, and Jer 39:1-7. The statements regarding Zedekiah's ascension and his government, Jer 52:1-3, agree word for word with 2Ki 24:18-20, even to the variation השׁליכו, Jer 52:3, for השׁליכו (Kings). The length of the siege of Jerusalem, Jer 52:4-7, and the flight, capture, and condemnation of King Zedekiah and the princes of Judah, Jer 52:7-11, not only agrees with 2Ki 25:1-7, but also with Jer 39:1-7, where it is merely the forcible entrance into the city by the Chaldeans that receives special detail; see on Jer 39:3. The variation ויּחנוּ, Jer 52:4, instead of ויּחן (2Ki 25:1), does not affect the sense. As to the account given of the flight, capture, and condemnation of the king, both Jer 39 and 2 Kings omit the notices given in Jer 52:10, "and also all the princes of Judah he caused to be slain (i.e., executed) at Riblah," and in Jer 52:11, "and he put him in the prison-house till the day of his death." בּית־הפּקדּות has been rendered οἰκία μυλῶνος by the lxx; on this fact Hitzig bases the opinion that the Hebrew words signify "the house of punishment," or "the house of correction," in which Zedekiah was obliged to turn the mill like other culprits, and as Samson was once obliged to do (Jdg 16:21). But this meaning of the words cannot be substantiated. פּקדּה means "oversight, mustering, or visitation (Heimsuchung), or vengeance," e.g., Isa 10:3, but not punishment (Strafe), and the plural, "watches" (Eze 9:1) and "custody," Ezek. 54:11; hence the expression used here signifies "the house of custody," or "the house of the watches." The translation of the lxx can decide nothing against this, because their interpretation is based upon traditions which are themselves unfounded. Regarding this, Ewald well remarks (History of the People of Israel, iii. p. 748 of 2nd ed.): "That Zedekiah must have laboured at the mill, as is mentioned in later chronicles (see Aug. Mai, Scriptorum veterum nova collectio, t. i. P. 2, p. 6; cf. Chr. Sam. Ch. xlv.), is probably a mere inference from Lam 5:13."

Verses 12-14

The destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple, and the carrying away of the people, which are only very summarily stated in Jer 39:8-10, are here related in complete accordance with the account given in 2Ki 25:8-17. The deviations for the most part originated through the freedom exercised by the epitomizer in his work, or only when mistakes were made by later copyists. The text before us has some amplifications (especially the notices regarding the ornaments of the brazen pillars, Jer 52:23) which are found nowhere else in the Old Testament. The difference in date between Jer 52:12 ("on the tenth of the month") and the passage in Kings ("on the seventh of the month") has arisen through one number having been mistaken for another in copying; it cannot now be decided which is correct; see on 2Ki 25:18. As to Nebuzaradan, see on Jer 39:13. Instead of עמד , is found עבד in 2Ki 25:8, which certainly is a simpler reading, but one having less appearance of being the original. The only strange point is the want of the relative אשׁר in plain prose before עמד, which is probably to be pointed עמד. בּירוּשׁלים, instead of ירוּשׁלים (Kings), is a pregnant expression for "he came into Jerusalem." - Jer 52:14. From the expression את־כּל־חומות, as given in Jer 52:14, "all" is omitted in Kings, as being not indispensable for the meaning.

Verses 15-16

The first words, "And of the poor of the people," are wanting in Kings, and have been brought here, through an error on the part of the copyist, from the beginning of the next verse; for "the poor of the people" are first treated of in Jer 52:16, where it is stated that Nebuzaradan left them in the land, while Jer 52:15 treats of those who were carried away to Babylon. The word האמון, instead of ההמון (Kings), seems to have originated simply through the exchange of א for ה, and to mean, like the other, the multitude of people. Hitzig and Graf are of opinion that אמון here, as in Pro 8:30, means workmaster or artificer, and that האמון denotes the same persons (collectively) who are designated החרשׁ והמּסגּר in Pro 24:1; Pro 29:2, and 2Ki 24:14. But this view is opposed by the parallel passage, Jer 39:9, where the whole of this verse occurs, and יתר העם הנּשׁארים stands instead of יתר האמון. "The rest of the people of Jerusalem" are divided, by ואת־ואת, into those who went over to the Chaldeans, and the

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1853

rest of the people who were taken prisoners by the Chaldeans at the capture of the city. The statement that both of these two classes of the population of Jerusalem were carried away to Babylon is so far limited by the further declaration, in Jer 52:16, that Nebuzaradan did not carry away every one, without exception, but let a portion of the humbler inhabitants of the country, who had no property, remain in the land, as vinedressers and husbandmen, that they might till the land. Instead of מדּלּות הארץ there occurs in Kings מדּלּת, and in Jer 39:10, more distinctly, מן העם הדּלּים, "some of the people, the humbler ones," who had no property of their own. דּלּה, pl. דּלּות, is an abstract noun, "poverty;" the singular is used collectively, hence the plural is here used to supply the deficiency. For יגבים, from יגב, to plough, there is found instead, in 2Ki 25:12, Kethib גּבים, from גּוּב, with the same meaning.

Verses 17-23

The carrying away of the vessels of the temple is more fully stated than in 2Ki 25:13-17. The large brazen articles, the two pillars at the porch (cf. 1Ki 7:15.), the bases (1Ki 7:27.), and the brazen sea (1Ki 7:23.), which were too vast in their proportions to be easily carried away to Babylon, were broken to pieces by the Chaldeans, who carried off the brass of which they were made. אשׁר לבּית is more correct than אשׁר  (Kings), and "all their brass" is more precise than simply "their brass" (Kings). In the enumeration of the smaller brazen vessels used for the temple service, Jer 52:18, there is omitted, in 2 Kings, ואת־המּזרקות, "and the bowls" (used in sacrifice); this omission is perhaps due merely to an error in transcription. The enumeration of the gold and silver vessels in Jer 52:19 has been much more abbreviated in 2Ki 25:15, where only "the fire-pans and the bowls" are mentioned, while in the text here, besides these there are named "the basons," then "the pots (Eng. vers. caldrons), and the candlesticks, and the pans (Eng. vers. spoons), and the cups." For particulars regarding these different vessels, see on 1Ki 7:40, 1Ki 7:45, 1Ki 7:50. In Jer 52:20, reference is made to the fact that the mass of metal in the vessels that were carried away was without weight. The same is stated in 2Ki 25:16, where, however, there is no mention of the twelve brazen bulls; while in the text of Jeremiah, אשׁר תּחת המּכנות

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1854

is faulty, and we must read instead, אשׁר תּחתּיו והמּכנות. The assertion of Graf, in his commentary on this verse, and of Thenius on 2Ki 25:16, - that the notice regarding the twelve brazen bulls is incorrect, because these were then no longer in Jerusalem (27:19), but had previously been removed by Ahaz from under the brazen sea for Tiglath-pileser, - we have already, under 2Ki 16:17, shown to be erroneous. The apposition of כּל־הכּלים  to לנחשׁתּם explains the reference of the suffix. In Jer 52:21-23, the narrator, in order to call attention to the amount of art exhibited on the vessels destroyed by the Chaldeans, gives a brief description of the brazen pillars with their capitals. This description is much shortened in 2Ki 25:17, and contains notices completing that which is given of these works of art in 1 Kings 7. For details, see the passage referred to.

Verses 24-30

The account given regarding the arrest of the chief officers of the temple and of the city, and concerning their transportation to Riblah, where Nebuchadnezzar caused them to be executed, agrees with 2Ki 25:18-21, except in some unimportant variations, which, however, do not alter the sense; the explanation has been already given in the commentary on that passage. In 2 Kings, the account of the appointment of Gedaliah as the governor of Judah, together with that of his assassination by Ishmael, which follows the narrative just referred to, is here omitted, because the matter has bee already more fully stated in the passage Jer 40:7 on to Jer 43:7, and had no close connection with the object of the present chapter. Instead of this, there follows here, in Jer 52:28-30 (as a continuation of the remark made, Jer 52:27, "Thus was Judah carried away captive out of his own land"), a calculation of the number of the Jews taken to Babylon at the three deportations: in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar, 3023 Jews; in the eighteenth year, 832 souls from Jerusalem; and in the twenty-third year, 745 souls, - in all, 4600 persons. The correctness of these data is vouched for by the exactness of the separate numbers, and the agreement of the sum with the individual items. In other respects, however, they present various difficulties. There is, first, the chronological discrepancy that the second deportation is here placed in the eighteenth year of

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1855

Nebuchadnezzar, in contradiction with Jer 52:12, according to which, the deportation after the taking of Jerusalem occurred in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar; and 832 souls could not well be carried out of Jerusalem during the siege. This difference can be settled only by assuming that this list of deportations was derived from another source than the preceding notice regarding the destruction of Jerusalem, in which the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign were reckoned in some other way than elsewhere in Jeremiah and in the books of Kings, probably from the date of the actual commencement of his reign, which followed a year after he first appeared in Judah, from which his reign is dated elsewhere; see Comm. on Daniel at Dan 1:1. According to this mode of computation, the seventh year would correspond to the eighth of the common reckoning, and be the year in which Jehoiachin was carried away to Babylon, together with a large number of the people. But this does not agree with 3023, which is given as the number of those who were carried away; for, at that time, according to 2Ki 24:14, 2Ki 24:16, as many as 10,000 Jews, or, according to another view of these verses, even 18,000, were carried away to Babylon. This difference does not permit of being explained in any way. Ewald (History of the People of Israel, iii. p. 738) accordingly assumes that in Jer 52:28, after שׁבע, the word עשׂרה has been omitted, as in 2Ch 36:9, where the age of Jehoiachin is given; hence he thinks that, instead of "in the seventh," we must read "in the seventeenth year of Nebuchadnezzar." On such a view, the reference would be to a deportation which took place under Zedekiah, a year before the capture, or during the time of the siege of Jerusalem, and that, too, out of the country districts of Judah in contrast with Jerusalem, Jer 52:29. This supposition is favoured not merely by the small number of those who are said to have been carried away, but also by the context of the narrative, inasmuch as, in what precedes, it is only the capture of Jerusalem and the deportation of the people in Zedekiah's time that is treated of. Nägelsbach has objected to this supposition, that it was not likely the great mass of the people would be carried away during the war, at a time when the approach of the Egyptian army (cf. Jer 37:5) was an object of

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1856

dread. But the objection does not weaken the supposition, since the former rests on two presuppositions that are quite erroneous: viz., first, that the deportation took place before the defeat of the auxiliary army from Egypt, where as it may have followed that event; and secondly, that the Chaldeans, by keeping the hostile Jews in the country, might have been able to get some assistance against the Egyptian army, whereas, by removing the hostile population of Judah, they would but diminish the number of the enemies with which they had to contend. We therefore regard this conjecture as highly probable, because it is the means of settling all difficulties, and because we can thereby account for the small number of those who were carried away in the deportations during and after the destruction of Jerusalem.
Regarding the third deportation, which was effected by Nebuzaradan (Jer 52:30) in the twenty-third, or, according to another reckoning, in the twenty-fourth year of Nebuchadnezzar, i.e., in the fifth year after the destruction of Jerusalem, we have no other information; for the statement of Josephus, Antt. x. 9. 7, that Nebuchadnezzar made war upon the Ammonites and Moabites in that year, has not been placed beyond a doubt, and is probably a mere inference from this verse, taken in connection with the prophecies in Jer 48 and 49. Yet there is nothing improbable in the statement, viewed by itself. For it must be borne in mind that, after the appointment of Gedaliah as governor, and the departure of the Chaldean hosts, many Jews, who had fled during the war, returned into the country. Hence, in spite of the fact that, after the murder of Gedaliah, a multitude of Jews, fearing the vengeance of the Chaldeans, fled to Egypt, many may have still remained in the country; and many other fugitives may not have returned till afterwards, and given occasion to the Chaldeans for removing other 745 disturbers of the peace to Babylon, four or five years after Jerusalem had been laid in ashes. This deportation may have taken place on the occasion of the subjugation of the Moabites, Ammonites, and Idumeans, or during the war with the Phoenicians, possibly because they had rendered assistance to these nations against the Chaldeans. These verses thus contain nothing to justify the assumption of M. von Niebuhr (Gesch. Assyr. und Babels, S. 58, note) and Nägelsbach,

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1857

that they are a gloss. The paucity of those who were carried away is not to be attributed to a desire on the part of the writer of this inserted portion to represent the calamity as not so very terrible after all; nor is it due to the substitution of the number of the Levites for that of the entire people, - two wholly arbitrary assumptions: it is completely explained by a consideration of the historical circumstances. The best of the population of Judah had already been carried away, and Zedekiah and his counsellors must have said to themselves, when they rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar, that the latter would not spare this time; thus they must have defended themselves to the utmost, as is shown by the very fact that the siege of Jerusalem lasted eighteen months. In this manner, war, pestilence, and famine carried off a great number of the population of Jerusalem; so that, of men who were able-bodied and fit for war, and who could be carried into exile, not more than 4600 fell into the hands of the Chaldeans. During the war, also, many had concealed themselves in inaccessible places, while the lowest of the people were left behind in the country to cultivate the fields. Still more strange might appear the circumstance that the sum-total of those who were carried away to Babylon, viz., 10,000 with Jehoiachin, and 4600 under Zedekiah, - 14, 600 in all, - is evidently disproportionate to the number of those who returned to Jerusalem and Judah under Zerubbabel, which number is given in Ezr 2:64 at 42, 360, exclusive of men and maid servants. For this reason, Graf is of opinion that still later deportations may have taken place, of which no mention is made anywhere. This assumption, however, has little probability. On the other hand, we must consider these points: (1.) In the accounts given of those who were carried away, only full-grown and independent persons of the male sex are reckoned, while, along with fathers, both their wives and their children went into exile. (2.) Even so early as the first capture of Jerusalem in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, a number of prisoners of war, perhaps not inconsiderable, came to Babylon; these might unite with the thousands of their brethren who were carried thither at a later period. (3.) When the exiles had settled down in Babylon, and there found not only a means of livelihood, but even in

Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1858

many instances, as is clear from several intimations, attained to opulence as citizens, many, even of those who had been left in the country, may have gone to Babylon, in the hope of finding there greater prosperity than in Judah, now laid waste and depopulated by war. (4.) From the time when the 10,000 were carried away with Jehoiachin, in the year 599 b.c., till the return under Zerubbabel, 536 b.c., 63 years, i.e., nearly two generations, had passed, during which the exiles might largely increase in numbers. If we take all these elements into consideration, then, in the simple fact that the number of those who returned amounts to nearly three times the numbers of those given as having been carried away under Jehoiachin and Zedekiah, we cannot find such a difficulty as entitles us to doubt the correctness of the numbers handed down to us.

Verses 31-34

The closing portion of this chapter, viz., the notice regarding the liberation of Jehoiachin from imprisonment, ad his elevation to royal honours by Evil-merodach after Nebuchadnezzar's death, substantially agrees with the account given of that even in 2Ki 25:27-30. The difference of date, "on the twenty-fifth of the month" (Jer 52:31), and "on the twenty-seventh of the month" in 2 Kings, has arisen through the entrance of a clerical error into one text or the other. The few remaining variations of the two texts have no influence on the meaning. As to the fact itself, and its importance for the people languishing in exile, we may refer to the explanation given at 2Ki 25:27.

1. The general strain of these verses is the same as that of the second portion of Isaiah; hence Hitzig, following Movers, views them as an interpolation made by the reviser. But this view is most incorrect, as Graf has already pointed out. The only expression which, besides the repetition made in Jer 46:27, occurs nowhere else in Jeremiah, but frequently in the second Isaiah, is, "my servant Jacob;" cf. Isa 44:1-2; Isa 45:4; Isa 48:20 and Isa 41:8; Isa 44:21; Isa 49:3. All the rest is not characteristic of Isaiah. "Thus, 'Fear not, I am with thee,' is certainly found in Isa 43:5, but also in Gen 26:24; 'Fear not, neither be afraid,' is found in a like connection in Isa 51:7, but also in Jer 23:24; Deu 1:21; Deu 31:8; Jos 8:1; cf. Isa 44:2; Jer 1:8, Jer 1:17; Jos 1:9. יעקוב occurs also in Jer 30:7, Jer 30:10, 25, Lam 2:3. For מושׁיעך, cf. Jer 14:8; for מרחק, cf. Jer 23:23; Jer 31:3; Jer 51:50. In the second part of Isaiah, שׁאנן occurs as seldom as ואין; on the other hand, cf. Jer 48:11; Jer 7:33. The expressions found in Jer 30:11 are as rare in the second part of Isaiah as they are frequent in Jeremiah. Thus, 'For I am with thee to save thee" is found in Jer 15:20; Jer 42:11; 'to make a full end' occurs also in Jer 4:27; Jer 5:10, Jer 5:18; 'I shall certainly not let thee go unpunished,' which, like Nah 1:3, seems to have been taken from Exo 34:7 or Num 14:18, is not found at all in the second part of Isaiah; הפיץ, which is found in Jer 9:15; Jer 13:24; Jer 18:17; Jer 23:1., appears only in Isa 41:16; and while יסּר  is used in the same meaning in Jer 10:24, יסּר occurs nowhere in the second part of Isaiah, and למּשׁפּט is found in Isa 41:1; Isa 54:17; Isa 59:11, in quite a different connection and meaning." (Graf.)
2. First, he holds the groundless opinion that this prophecy originated in the time of Josiah, and therefore could not have borrowed verses from the address given in Jer 23, which belongs to the time of Jehoiakim; secondly, with as little ground he affirms that these verses do not correspond with the character of the chapter, and seem like a jarring discord in the midst of the announcement of deliverance it contains; finally, he asks whence could come "the wicked" mentioned, in the times described by the prophet - as if he thought that when the captivity of the people was turned, all godless ones would suddenly disappear. - The doubts as to the genuineness of Jer 30:22 are based by Nägelsbach merely on the fact that the same idea is repeated in Jer 31:1.
3. In the citation of this passage in Heb 8:8., the words are quoted according to the lxx version, κᾀγὼ ἠμέλησα αὐτῶν, although this translation is incorrect, because the apostle does not use these words in proving any point. These same words, moreover, have been rendered by the lxx, in Jer 3:14, ἐγὼ κατακυριεύσω ὑμῶν.
4. Hitzig even thinks that, "because the style and the use of language betoken the second Isaiah, and the order of both strophes is reversed in the lxx (i.e., Jer 31:37 stands before Jer 31:35.), Jer 31:35, Jer 31:36 may have stood in the margin at the beginning of the genuine portion in Jer 31:27-34, and Jer 31:37, on the other hand, in the margin at Jer 31:34." But, that the verses, although they present reminiscences of the second Isaiah, do not quite prove that the language is his, has already been made sufficiently evident by Graf, who points out that, in the second Isaiah, המה is nowhere used of the roaring of the sea, nor do we meet with חקּות and חקּים, ישׁבּתוּ מהיות, כּל־היּמים, nor again הקר in the Niphal, or מוסדי ארץ (but מוסדות  in Isa 40:21); other expressions are not peculiar to the second Isaiah, since they also occur in other writings. - But the transposition of the verses in the lxx, in view of the arbitrary treatment of the text of Jeremiah in that version, cannot be made to prove anything whatever.
5. The different attempts to solve the difficulty by conjectures are of such a nature as scarcely to deserve mention. Ewald would change החרב בּאים into החרבים otni , "that are broken down opposite the earthworks and the cannons." But the plural of חרב is חרבות, Eze 26:21, and cannot possibly mean cannons. E. Meier would read החריב בּאים, "and for the destruction of those who are pressing in." Then בּאים must be the enemy who are pressing in; but how does this agree with what follows, "in order to fight with the Chaldeans"? Lastly, Nägelsbach would change את־ הכּשׂדּיםinto על־ירוּשׁלים, to obtain the idea that the earthworks and the sword come for the purpose of contending against Jerusalem (!).
6. The portion contained within Jer 33:14-26 is wanting in the lxx; for

   Page:05.BCOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.A.vol.5.GreaterProphets.djvu/1598

   this reason, and chiefly because of the promise of the eternal duration, not merely of the royal house of David, but also of the Levitical priests, and their innumerable increase, J. D. Michaelis and Jahn have considered it spurious. To these must be added Movers, who takes Jer 33:18, Jer 33:21-25 as later interpolations, and Hitzig, who treats the whole passage as a series of separate additions made in a later age. On the other side, Kueper, Wichelhaus, and Hengstenberg (Christology, vol. ii. pp. 459-461 of Clark's Translation) have shown the utter worthlessness of these reasons, and Graf also has defended the genuineness of the passage. So too has Ewald, who says (Propheten, ii. 269), "Nothing can be so preposterous and unreasonable as to find in this passage, Jer 33:19-26, or in Jer 30-33 generally, additions by a later prophet."

7. Continebatur autem salus populi duabus istis partibus. Nam, sine rege, erant veluti corpus truncum aut mutilum; sine sacerdote mera erat dissipatio. Nam sacerdos erat quasi medius inter Deum et populum, rex autem representabat Dei personam. - Calvin.
8. These injunctions, given by Jonadab to his posterity, that he might make them always lead a nomad life, are quoted by Diodorus Siculus, xix. 94, as a law among the Nabateans: Νόμος ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς μήτε σίτον σπείρειν, μήτε φυτεύειν μηδὲν φυτὸν καρποφόρον, μήτε οἴνῳ χρῆσθαι, μήτε οἰκίαν κατασεκυάζειν; while the object of the law is stated to have been the maintenance of their freedom against the more powerful who sought to bring them into subjection. And even at the present day the Bedouins imagine that they are prevented, by the nobility of their descent from Ishmael, from engaging in agriculture, handicraft, or the arts; cf. Arvieux, Sitten der Beduinen-Araber, 5f.
9. According to the account of the Jewish missionary Wolff, there are still some Rechabites in Asia, in Mesopotamia and Yemen, who affirm that they are descended from Hobab the brother-in-law [A.V. "father-in-law;" but see Smith's Bible Dictionary, vol. i. Hobab] of Moses. Wolff points out that part of the desert of Yemen near Senaa as the special locality where these Rechabites live. Cf. Dr. Joseph Wolff, ein Wanderleben, von Dr. Sengelmann, Hamburg 1863, S. 65 u 196.
10. The greater portion of the section Jer 39:1-14 is set down by Movers, Hitzig, Ewald, and Graf as the interpolation of a later glosser, compiled either out of Jer 52:4-16, or from 2 Kings 25. Jer 39:3, Jer 39:11, Jer 39:12, and Jer 39:14 are supposed by Hitzig to be all that are genuine, on the ground that these are the only portions containing independent statements, not derived from any other source. They treat simply of the person of the prophet, and state how, at the command of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuzaradan, the captain of the body-guard, brought Jeremiah out of the court of the prison and delivered him over to the care of Gedaliah. If we gather together the verses that are left as genuine, we find, of course, that the subject treated of in them is what occurred when Jeremiah was liberated from his confinement in the court of the prison. But neither is the difference between Jer 39:14 and Jer 40:1. thereby settled, nor the difficulty removed, that Nebuzaradan, the captain of the body-guard, was not present with the army when Jerusalem was taken; according to Jer 52:12, it was not till a month after that event that he was sent to Jerusalem from Riblah by the king, who was staying there. Jer 39:11 and Jer 39:12, too, retain the appearance of being interpolations. Ewald and Graf, accordingly, consider these two verses also as later insertions. But even this view does not settle the differences and difficulties that have been raised, but only increases them; for it would represent Jeremiah as being set at liberty, not by Nebuzaradan, as is related Jer 40:1., but by the Chaldean generals named in Jer 39:3. - When, however, we inquire into the grounds taken as the foundation of this hypothesis, the fact that the lxx have omitted Jer 39:4, Jer 39:10, and Jer 39:13 can prove nothing, since Jer 39:1 and Jer 39:2 are found in the lxx, although these also are supposed to be spurious. The only argument adduced for the attempted excision, viz., that Jer 39:1, Jer 39:2, Jer 39:4-10 break the connection, proves absolutely nothing in itself, but merely receives importance on the supposition that the present section could only treat of the liberation of Jeremiah, and must contain nothing that is mentioned elsewhere regarding the taking of Jerusalem. But this supposition is quite unwarranted. That Jer 39:1 and Jer 39:2 are inserted parenthetically cannot afford any ground of suspicion as regards their genuineness; and that, in Jer 39:4-10, mention is briefly made of Zedekiah's being seized and condemned, of the destruction of Jerusalem, and the carrying away of the people, except the very meanest, - this also cannot throw suspicion on the genuineness of these verses; fore these statements obviously aim at showing how the word of the Lord, which Jeremiah had proclaimed repeatedly, and once more a short time before the storming of the city, had been fulfilled. Finally, it follows from this that these statements agree with those given in Jer 52 and in 2 Kings regarding the capture and destruction of Jerusalem; but it does not follow that they have been derived from the latter as their source. The language in the disputed verses is peculiarly that of Jeremiah. The expression כּל־חרי יהוּדה is found in Jer 27:20; while in Jer 52:10, instead of it, we find כּל־שׂרי, and in 2 Kings the whole sentence is wanting. So, also, דּבּר משׁפּטים, Jer 39:5 and Jer 52:9, is an expression peculiar to Jeremiah (see on Jer 1:16); in 2Ki 25:6 it is changed to דּבּר משׁפּט. Thus we must set down as groundless and erroneous the allegation made by Hitzig and Graf, that these verses of our chapter have been derived from 2 Kings; for the form of the name Nebuchadnezzar (with n) in Jer 39:5 instead of Nebuchadrezzar, which agrees with 2 Kings, and which has been brought to bear on this question, can prove nothing, just because not only in Jer 39:11 but also in Jer 39:1 (which also is said to be taken from 2 Kings) we find Nebuchadrezzar.
11. There is still less ground, with Hitzig, Graf, and Nägelsbach, for assuming that ורבּי המּלך is a gloss that has crept into the text. The fact that רבּים, which is used here, is elsewhere applied only to Chaldean nobles, is insufficient to show this; and even Ewald has remarked that "the last king (Zedekiah) may well be supposed to have appointed a number of grandees, after the example of the Chaldeans, and given them, too, Chaldean names."
12. Because the lxx have, for בּיד גּדליהוּ הוּא, φρέαρ μέγα τοῦτό ἐστιν, J. D. Michaelis, Dahler, Movers, Hitzig, and Graf would change the text, and either take ryb lwdg 'wh (Dahler, Movers) or בּיר הגּדול הוּא (= בּור) as the original reading, inasmuch as one codex of De Rossi's also has בור. But apart from the improbability of בּור גּדול or הגּדול being incorrectly changed into בּיד גּדליהוּ, we find that הוּא stands provokingly in the way; for it would be superfluous, or introduce an improper emphasis into the sentence. The lxx have but been attempting to guess at a translation of a text they did not understand. What Hitzig further supposes has no foundation, viz., that this "ditch" is identical with that mentioned 1Sa 19:22, in שׂכוּ, and with τὸ φρέαρ τὸ μέγα of 1 Macc. 7:19; for the ditch at Sechu was near Ramah, which was about four miles from Mizpah, and the large fountain 1 Macc. 7:19 was ἐν Βηζέθ, an unknown place in the vicinity of Jerusalem.
13. From the above statement, the propriety and correctness of arrangement among these oracles in the Hebrew text will both be apparent. On the other hand, the transposition made in the Greek text of the lxx (already referred to in the note on p. 22) is characterized, even by Ewald and Hitzig, as "arbitrary" and "incorrect." Ewald remarks: "We cannot find that any other principle was acted upon in their arrangement than that the large portion about Babylon, Jer 50ff., should be made as prominent as possible; the small piece about the Elamites which precedes it, Jer 49:34-39, was put the very first, probably because it was thought desirable that, seeing they were then under Persian rule, what plainly referred to Persia should be made conspicuous; the portion directed against the Babylonians was then placed immediately after that referring to Egypt; that referring to the Philistines was then put in its place, but that referring to Edom, as being longer, was inserted after it; then the three small pieces on Ammon, Kedar, and Damascus were put together, while the large one about Moab concluded this much-distorted series." But the assertion of Movers and Hitzig - that this arrangement in the Greek text did not originate with the translator, but was found in the original, and that, too (according to Movers), at the time of Alexander's campaign against Persia - rests on critical conjectures regarding Jer 46:27-28, which are decidedly erroneous. Moreover, the insertion of these oracles into the middle of Jer 25, between Jer 25:13 and Jer 25:15, in the lxx text, is due to the arbitrary conduct of the Alexandrine translator, as even Hitzig allows that whoever arranged the chapter did not find it in a fragmentary condition, but had himself dismembered it. Yet Hitzig is of opinion that these oracles originally belonged to somewhere about Jer 25, - a view that rests on grounds which, in the note on p. 233, we have already shown to be untenable.
14. See the opinion of Rawlinson in Smith's Bible Dictionary, vol. i. p. 278. - Tr.
15. The word שׁם has been read by the lxx and the Vulgate as if it had been שׁם, ὄνομα, nomen; accordingly the lxx render, καλέσατε τὸ ὄνομα Φαραὼ Νεχαὼ βασίλεως Αἰγύπτου Σαὼν  ̓Εσβεὶ  ̓Εμωήδ (or  ̓Εσβειὲ Μωὴδe'd); Vulgate, vocate nomen Pharaonis regis Aegypti: Tumultum adduxit tempus. This reading is preferred by J. D. Michaelis, Ewald, Hitzig, and Graf, with this difference, that Hitzig and Graf take only שׁאון as a name. Hence Ewald translates, "They call Pharaoh's name 'Noise-which-a-wink-can-hush.' " This rendering is decidedly false, for מועד nowhere has the sense of "wink, nod," not even in Jdg 20:38, where it means an agreement made. For the reading שׁם instead of שׁם there are no sufficient grounds, although such passages as Jer 20:3 and Isa 30:7 may be adduced in support of the idea obtained by such a change in the word. The translation of the lxx is merely a reproduction of the Hebrew words by Greek letters, and shows that the translator did not know how to interpret them. The Vulgate rendering, tumultum adduxit tempus, is also devoid of meaning. Moreover, these translators have read קראוּ as the imperative קראוּ; if we reject this reading, as all moderns do, then we may also lay no weight on שׁם instead of שׁם. Besides, the meaning is not materially affected by this reading, for the giving of a name to a person merely expresses what he is or will be.
16. The old translators have quite misunderstood these words, and attempted to apply them, each one according to his own fancy, to the enemy. Thus the lxx translate: Φωνὴ αὐτῶνקולם( ) ὡς ὄφεοως συρίζοντος, ὅτι ἐν ἄμμῳבּחול( for בּחיל) πορεύσονται, κ.τ.λ. Chald.: vox collisionis armorum eorum est sicut vox serpentum repentium; and similarly the Syriac. The Vulgate is: vox ejus quasi aerisנחשׁת( for נחשׁ) sonabit, quoniam cum exercitu properabunt et cum securibus venient. The translator of the Vulgate has thus read קולהּ, and referred the suffix to קרץ, which he renders stimulator. Luther follows the Vulgate: "Sie faren daher, das der Harnisch brasselt, und kommen mit Heeres Krafft." Hitzig also seeks to change the text, after the lxx, turning קולהּ into קולם, and בּחיל into בּחול. But this alteration disturbs the order of the sentence. Not only in Jer 46:20 and Jer 46:21, but also in Jer 46:23, Jer 46:24, the first clause always treats of Egypt, and what befalls her is only stated in the clauses which follow: so is it in Jer 46:22. Thus the alteration made affords a very trivial result, viz., that the enemy advancing on Egypt march through the very sandy desert between Gaza and Egypt, and make slow progress, like serpents, because they wade through the sand; so that they make their appearance suddenly and unexpectedly.
17. On the discovery of this memorial stone, of which Count de Vogüé gave the first account in a paper entitled "Le stêle de Mésa: Lettre à Mr. le Comte de Vogüé par Ch. Clermont-Ganneau," Paris 1870, cf. the detailed notice by Petermann in the Zeitschr. der Deutschen Morg. Gesell. xxiv. (for 1870), S. 640ff. The stone was broken to pieces by the Arabs; thus, unfortunately, the whole of the inscription has not been preserved. So much, however, of the fragments has been saved, that from these the contents of the inscription may be substantially obtained with tolerable certainty. The work of deciphering has been undertaken by Konst. Schlottmann (Ueber die Siegessäule Mesa's, Königs der Moabiter, Hall. Osterprogr. 1870, with these additions: "Die Inschrift Mesa's; Transcription u. Uebersetzung revidirt," in the Zeitschr. der Morg. Gesell. xxv. S. 253ff.; "Additamenta" in the same periodical, S. 415ff., 438ff., 645ff.; and "Der Moabiterkönig Mesa nach seiner Inschrift und nach den bibl. Berichten," in the Theol. Stud. u. Kritiken, 1871, S. 587ff.), also by Theod. Nöldeke "(Die Inschrift des K. Mesa," Keil 1870), Ferd. Hitzig ("Die Inschrift des Mesha," Heidelb. 1870), Himpel (in the Tüb. Theol. Quartalschr. 1870, H. 4, and in Merx' Archiv, ii. S. 96ff.), Diestel ("Die moabit. Gedenktafel," in the Jahrb.f. deutsche Theol. 1871 (H. 4), S. 215ff.), Rabbi Dr. Geiger "(Die Säule des Mesa," in the Zeitschr. der Morg. Ges. xxiv. S. 212ff.), Dr. Ginsburg ("The Moabite Stone," Lond. 1870), Ganneau (in the Révue archéol.); by Derenburg and others (in German, English, and French periodicals). In addition to the work of Dr. Ginsburg, mentioned above, the English reader may consult an able article by Professor Wright in the North British Review for October 1870; one by W. H. Ward in the Bibliotheca Sacra of the same date; and another by Prof. A. B. Davidson in the British and Foreign Evangelical Review for January 1871. - Tr.]
18. This reproduction Gesenius (on Isaiah, p. 511) characterizes as "a feeble imitation, by which the text of the older author is made quite diffuse and watery, frequently mixed through in a wonderful manner, made into a kind of patchwork, and enlivened now and again by a stiff turn." Movers and Hitzig have spoken still more deprecatingly of this chapter, and excised a great number of verses, on the ground of their having been introduced later by way of touching up; in this manner, Hitzig rejects as spurious verses which Movers recognises as exhibiting marks of Jeremiah's peculiar style, - a method of procedure which Graf has already denounced as arbitrary criticism. We hope to show in the commentary the total want of foundation for this pseudo-critical mode of dealing; we only make the further remark here by anticipation, that Keuper (on Jeremiah, p. 83ff.) has very clearly accounted for and vindicated the conduct of Jeremiah in making use of the expressions of previous prophets, while Movers and Hitzig have paid no regard to this thorough kind of work.
19. The mention of Moab among names if cities in Jer 48:4, and in connection with Kir-heres in Jer 48:31 and Jer 48:36 proves nothing; for in Jer 48:4 Moab is not named among towns, and the expression in Jer 48:31 and Jer 48:36 is analogous to the phrase "Judah and Jerusalem." Nor can any proof be derived from the fact that Rabbath-Moab is merely called "Moab" in the Onomasticon of Eusebius, and Mâb in Abulfeda, and Rabbath-Ammon, now merely "Amman;" because this mode of speaking will not admit of being applied for purposes of proof to matters pertaining to Old Testament times, since it originated only in the Christian ages,at a time, too, when Rabbath had become the capital of the country, and when Rabbath-Moab could easily be shortened by the common people into "Moab." Rabbath (of Moab), however, is not mentioned at all in the Old Testament.
20. The Masoretic accentuation, according to which Athnach is placed under כּן, exhibits another view of the words in the text: this is shown by the Chaldee paraphrase, "their nobles endure not, they have not done what is right." The Masoretes took בּדּים in the sense of "staves," and took staves as a symbol of princes, as in Hos 11:6. Luther, in his translation, "I know his anger well, that he cannot do so very much, and attempts to do more than he can," follows the Vulgate, Ego scio jactantiam ejus, et quod non sit juxta eam virtus ejus, nec juxta quod poterat conata sit facere, which again seems to have followed the lxx in taking בּדיּו for בּדּיו.
21. The lxx have in this passage, as in Jer 47:5, changed עמק for ענק, and translated τὶ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε ὲν τοῖς πεδίοις  ̓Εννακείμ; here it remains doubtful whether they have expressed בּעמקים or עמקך by  ̓Εννακείμ. On the ground of this arbitrary paraphrase, Hitzig would at once change עמקים into ענקים, without considering that the giant races of that region, to which Og the king of Bashan had also belonged (Deu 3:11), were not called ענקים at all, but זמזמּים by the Ammonites, and אימים by the Moabites (Deu 2:10, Deu 2:20).
22. The use made of Obadiah by Jeremiah has been so convincingly proved, especially by Caspari in his commentary on Obadiah, that even Ewald and Graf, who place the prophecy of Obadiah in the time of the exile, acknowledge this use that has been made of it, and therefore hold that the first part of the book of Obadiah is a fragment of an older oracle. This is a hypothesis which we have already shown, in the introduction to Obadiah, to be untenable.
23. According to Mrc. v. Niebuhr, Gesch. Ass. u. Bab. p. 210, "Hazor is the modern Hajar, a region which occupies the whole north-eastern corner of the Nejed, and to which, in the wider sense, Lascha, the region on the coast, also belongs" But חצור, from חצר, which corresponds to Arab. htsr or hdr, is fundamentally different from Arab. hjr or ḥjr.
24. No valid reason has been adduced for calling in question the statement in the title regarding the time when this prophecy was composed; yet this has been done by Movers, Hitzig, and Nägelsbach. "That the lxx have given the heading twice, the first time briefly, and then fully at the end of the piece, merely shows that two different readings have now been combined in it" (Ewald). And Nägelsbach has yet to bring proof of the assurance given us when he says, "I consider it quite impossible that Jeremiah, in the beginning of Zedekiah's reign, should have thought of any other than Nebuchadnezzar as the instrument to be employed in executing judgment, or that he should even have left this matter in suspenso." If Jeremiah, as a prophet of the Lord, does not announce, as the word of Jahveh, mere human conjectures regarding the future, but only what the Spirit of the Lord suggested to him, neither could he set forth his own conjectures regarding the question by whom God the Lord was to scatter the Elamites to the four winds, but must leave it in suspenso, if the Spirit of the Lord had revealed nothing to him regarding it.
25. With regard to the special attacks and their refutation, see details on Keil's Manual of Introduction to the Old Testament translated by Prof. Douglas, in Clark's F.T.L. vol. i. p. 342ff.. To the list there given of the defenders of this prophecy (of whom Kueper, Hävernick, and Nägelsbach in the monograph entitled der Prophet Jeremias und Babylon, 1850, have thoroughly discussed the question), we must add the name of Graf, who, in the remarks prefixed to his commentary on Jer 50f., has thoroughly examined the arguments of his opponents, and reached this result: "The prophecy contains nothing which Jeremiah could not have written in the fourth year of Zedekiah; and the style of writing itself exhibits all the peculiarities which present themselves in his book. This prophecy is therefore as much his work as the prophecies against the other foreign nations." Only the passage Jer 51:15-19, a repetition of Jer 10:12-16, is said to proceed from another hand, because it stands out of all connection with what precedes and what follows it (but see the exposition); while he has so fully vindicated, as genuine portions of the prophecy, other passages which had been assumed as interpolations, even by Nägelsbach in his monograph, that the latter, in treating of Jeremiah in Lange's Bibelwerk see Clark's Translation, p. 419, has renounced his former doubts, and now declares that it is only the passage in Jer 51:15-19 that he cannot regard as original.
26. Thus, according to Eichhorn, Dahler, and Rosenmüller, the whole consists of several pieces (three or six) which originally belonged to different periods; according to Schmieder, it consists of "seven different poems of songs, all having the same subject, which, however, they set forth from different sides, and under countless images." Nägelsbach at first assumed that there were three main divisions, with thirteen subdivisions; afterwards, in Lange's Bibelwerk see Clark's Foreign Theol. Library, he thinks he is able also to distinguish three stages of time, which, however, do not permit of being sharply defined, so that he continues to divide the whole prophecy into nineteen separate views or figures.
27. Instead of משׂכּיל, J. H. Michaelis, in his Biblia Halens., has accepted the reading משּׁכּיל on the authority of three Erfurt codices and three old editions (a Veneta of 1618; Buxtorf's Rabbinic Bible, printed at Basle, 1720; and the London Polyglott). J. D. Michaelis, Rosenmüller, Maurer, and Umbreit have decided for this reading, and point to the rendering of the Vulgate, interfectoris, and of the Targum, מתכּיל, orbans. On the other hand, the lxx and Syriac have read and rendered משׂכּיל; and this reading is not merely presented by nonnulli libri, as Maurer states, but by twelve codices of de Rossi, and all the more ancient editions of the Bible, of which de Rossi in his variae lectiones mentions forty-one. The critical witnesses are thus overwhelming for משׂכּיל; and against משּׁכּיל there lies the further consideration, that שׁכל has the meaning orbare, to render childless, only in the Piel, but in the Hiphil means abortare, to cause or have miscarriages, as is shown by רחם משּׁכּיל, Hos 9:14.
28. Duncker, Gesch. d. Alterth. i. S. 846, remarks: "The fertility of the soil of Babylon - the produce of the fields - depended on the inundations of the Euphrates. By means of an extensive system of dykes, canals, and river-walls, Nebuchadnezzar succeeded not only in conducting the water of the Euphrates to every point in the plain of Babylon, but also in averting the formation of marshes and the occurrence of floods (which were not rare), as well as regulating the inundation." The purpose for which these water-works were constructed, was "first of all, irrigation and navigation; but they at the same time afforded strong liens of defence against the foe" (Niebuhr, Gesch. Assyr. u. Bab. S. 219). See details regarding these magnificent works in Duncker, S. 845ff.; Niebuhr, S. 218ff.
29. In Jer 10:16 the lxx have taken no account either of ישׂראל or שׁבט. Hence Movers, Hitzig, and Ewald infer that these words have found their way into the text as a gloss suggested by Deu 32:9, and should be deleted. But in this they are wrong. The omission of the two words by the lxx is a result of the erroneous translation there given of the first clause of the verse. This the lxx have rendered ου ̓ τοιαύτη μερὶς τῷ  ̓Ιακωβ, instead of ου ̓ τοιαύτη ἡ μερὶς τοῦ  ̓Ιακώβ. Having done so, it was impossible for them to continue, ὅτι ὁ πλάσας τὰ πάντα αὐτός, because they could not predicate this of μερίς, which they evidently did not take to mean God. And if they were to connect הוּא with what followed, they were bound to omit the two words, for it would never have done to take together הוּא וישׂראל שׁבט נחלתו. They therefore simply omitted the troublesome words, and went on to translate: ὅτι ὁ πλάσας τὰ πάντα αὐτός κληρονομία αὐτοῦ. Cf. Nägelsbach. Jeremia u. Babylon, S. 94.
30. "The threshing-floor is an open spot in the field, carefully levelled and cleared from stones, etc., that the grain may be spread out on it for threshing." - Paulsen, Ackerbau der Morgenl. S. 123. "A level spot is selected for the threshing-floors, which are then constructed near each other, of a circular form, perhaps fifty feet in diameter, merely by beating the earth hard." - Robinson's Pal. ii. 227.
31. The form actually found in the Masoretic text is מעדני, "from (out of, with) my dainties." - Tr.
32. Rather, "shall be ashamed;" see note at foot of p. 311. - Tr.
33. Cf. J. Oppert, Expédition en Mésopot. i. p. 227, where, on the strength of an inscription of Asarhaddon, which is read, "Imgur-Bel is its (Babylon's) chief wall, Ninivitti-Bel its rampart," the expressions found in the inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar before the mention of the walls - viz. "Imgur-Bel" (may Bel-Dagon protect him) and "Ninivitti-Bel" (the abode of Bel) - have been explained by Rawlinson and Oppert as names of the first and second lines of fortification round Babylon.
34. Keil has here misread the Hebrew text, which runs כּל־ארצהּ תּבּושׁ. The verb does not come from יבשׁ, to become dry, but from בּושׁ, to be ashamed; hence the correct rendering is, "all her land shall be ashamed," not "shall be dried up." - Tr.
35. For details as to the number of the walls, and statistics regarding them, see Duncker, S. 858, Anm. 3, who is inclined to understand the notice of Berosus regarding a triple wall as meaning that the walls of the river are counted as the second, and those round the royal fortress as the third line of circumvallation. J. Oppert, Expéd. en Mésop. i. p. 220ff., has given a thorough discussion of this question. By carefully comparing the accounts of the ancient writers regarding the walls of Babylon, and those given in the inscriptions, lately discovered and deciphered, found on the buildings of Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar, with the vast extent of the long mounds of rubbish on the places where the ruins are met with, he has obtained this result, - that the city was surrounded by a strong double wall with deep ditches, an outer and an inner enceinte, and that the outer or large wall enclosed a space of 513 square kilometres, i.e., a piece of ground as large as the department of the Seine, fifteen times the extent of the city of Paris in the year 1859, seven times that of the same city in 1860, while the second or inner wall enclosed an area of 290 square kilometres, much larger than the space occupied by London.
36. The Peshito renders שׂר מנוּחה by "chief of the camp," evidently reading מחנה. Gesenius, following in this line, though that Seraiah held an office in the Babylonian army similar to that of quartermaster-general. It is evident, however, that he was rather an officer of the Jewish court in attendance on the king. Maurer, who is followed by Hitzig, and here by Keil, in his rendering "Reisemarschall," suggested the idea that he was a functionary who took charge of the royal caravan when on the march, and fixed the halting-place. - Tr.
37. Mistaking the meaning of the repetition of the word ויעפוּ, Movers, Hitzig, and Graf have thereon based various untenable conjectures. Movers infers from the circumstance that the whole epilogue is spurious; Hitzig and Graf conclude from it that the closing words, "Thus far are the words of Jeremiah," originally came after Jer 51:58, and that the epilogue, because it does not at all admit of being separated from the great oracle against Babylon, originally preceded the oracle beginning Jer 50:1, but was afterwards placed at the end; moreover, that the transposer cut off from Jer 51:58 the concluding remark, "Thus far," etc., and put it at the end of the epilogue (Jer 51:64), but, at the same time, also transferred ויעפוּ, in order to show that the words, i.e., the prophecies of Jeremiah, strictly speaking, extend only thus far. This intimation is, indeed, quite superfluous, for it never could occur to the mind of any intelligent reader that the epilogue, Jer 51:59-64, was an integral portion of the prophecy itself. And there would be no meaning in placing the epilogue before Jer 50:1.
38. Fresh interest in Babylonian archaeology has of late been awakened, especially in this country, by Mr. George Smith, of the British Museum, who has collected and deciphered about eighty fragments of some tablets that had been brought from Assyria, and that give an account of the deluge different in some respects from the Mosaic one. The proprietors of the Daily Telegraph have also shown much public spirit in sending out, at their own cost, an expedition to Assyria, for further investigation of the ruins there. - Tr.